EVOLUTION 
AT  THE  BAR 

PHILIP  MAURO 


n 


BL  263  .M42  1922 

Mauro,  Philip,  1859-1952 

Evolution  at  the  bar 


BOOKS  ON 

The  Kingdom  of  God 

By  Philip  Mauro 
I.    The  Kingdom  of  Heaven 

What  it  is?  and  when?  and  where?     Re- 
written and  enlarged. 

Paper  50c,  Cloth  85c. 


11.    ^^ After  This'* 

or  the  Church,  the  Kingdom,  and  the  Glory. 
Contains  a  discussion  of  the  Parables  of 
the  Kingdom.  Cloth  $1.00. 


III.    God's  Present  Kingdom 

270  pages  giving  a  comprehensive  view  of 
the  Kingdom  as  it  now  is.  Cloth  $1.25. 


IV.  Bringing  Back  the  King 

containing  ''The  sure  mercies  of  David" 
and  other  important  Kingdom  themes. 

Cloth  $1.00. 

V.  A    Kingdom    Which    Cannot    be 
Shaken 

A  valuable  feature  of  this  book  is  a  detail- 
ed examination,  in  the  light  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, of  the  Kingdom-theories  found  in 
the  ' '  Scofield  Reference  Bible. ' '  $1.25. 


BOOKS  BY  PHILIP  MAURO 

Ruth,  the  Satisfied  Stranger.  Rich  in  lessons 
appropriate  to  these  perilous  times.  The  chap- 
ter on  "The  Nearer  Kinsman"  will  be  of  spe- 
cial interest  to  every  Bible  reader,  teacher 
and  student.     Just  the  book  for  a  gift. 

(Cloth)    $1.25 

(Ooze   Calf)    $3.00 

Our   Liberty    in    Christ.      An    exposition    of    the 

Epistle  to  the  Galatians  $1.23 

The  Number  of  Man,  or  the  Climax  of  Civiliza- 
tion.    With  new  chapter  on  the  results  of  the 

war.       (Cloth)    $1.25 

God's  Pilgrims.  Their  Dangers,  their  Resources, 
their  Rewards.  A  special  message  to  those 
people  of  God  who  wish  to  be  strangers  and 

pilgrims  on  earth.      (Paper) $  .50 

(Cloth)    $1.00 

God's  Apostle  and  High  Priest.  A  study  of  the 
Person  and  work  of  Christ,  setting  forth  His 
official  work  first  as  Apostle,  second  as  High 

Priest,  third  as  Priest-King.      (Cloth)  $  .75 

God's  Gospel  and  God's  Righteousness.  Expo- 
sition of  Romans  1  to  5.      (Cloth)    $  .75 

God's  Gift  and  our  Response.  Exposition  of  Ro- 
mans 5  to  8.     Companion  to  the  above. 

(Cloth)    $  .75 

God's  Love  and  God's  Children.  Exposition  of 
Romans  8:14-16  27.     Companion  to  the  above. 

(Cloth)    $  .75 

Life  in  The  Word.  Forceful,  strengthening  and 
stimulating.  Showing  the  divine  origin,  au- 
thority and  inspiration  of  the  Bible  as  a  living 

book.      (Paper)    $  .30 

(Cloth    $  .60 

The  AVorld  and  Its  God.  An  examination  of  the 
doctrines  of  materialism  in  the  light  of  Gene- 
sis.     (Paper)    $  .30 

(Cloth)    $  .75 

''Looking  for  the  Saviour."      (Paper)    $  .30 

(Cloth    $  .60 

Baptism  and  the  New  Covenant.     (Cloth)  $  .35 

(Paper)     $  .15 


EVOLUTION  AT 
THE  BAR 


Philip  Mauro 


"Hath  not  God  made  foolish  the  wisdom 
of  this  world?"—!  Cor.  1.  20 


HAMILTON  BROS.  SCRIPTURE  TRUTH  DEPOT 
120  Tremont  Street,  Boston  9,  Mass. 


Copyright   1922 

BY  Hamilton  Bros. 

Printed  in  the 

United  States  of  America 


CONTENTS 

Page 
FOREWORD 7 

CHAPTER  I 11 

The  Theory  Defined 
Cosmic  Evolution 
Organic  Evolution 

CHAPTER  II 17 

Breaks  in  the  Continuity 
The  Origin  of  Life 
Other  Origins 
Permanence  of  Species 
Development  of  Varieties 
Reproduction 

CHAPTER  III 27 

** Science"  as  an  Authority 
Reasons  Given  in  Support  of  Evolution 
Embryology 
Succession  of  Species 
Species  Appears  Suddenly 
Great   Gaps    between    Species    Existed    from 

the  First 
The  Fragmentary  Character  of  the  Geological 

Record 

CHAPTER  IV 38 

Specific  Objections  to  Evolution: 

The  Wings  of  Fowls 
The  Bat  and  the  Mole 
The  Water   Spider 

Organs    and    Instincts:    The    Beehive,    The 
Beaver 


6  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  V 52 

The  Origin  of  Man 

Distinguishing  Characteristics  of  Man 

■** Missing  Links" 

Ancient  Human  Remains — Scientific 

Authorities  Quoted 

CHAPTER  VI .        58 

Theistic  Evolution 

Evolution  and  Christianity 

The  Law  and  the  Gospel  not  Evolved 

Evolution  and  Christ 

CHAPTER  VII 67 

Estimates  of  Darwinism 

Darwinism  Rejected  by  Men  of  Science 

The  Existing  Danger 

Darwinism  in  the  Schools 

CHAPTER  VIII 73 

Evolution  in  Human  Affairs 
Evidences   of   Evolution   in   all   Human   Ac- 
tivities 
Mr.  Wallace  on  Human  ''Progress" 
The  Spread  of  the  Theory  Accounted  For 
The  ''Fatal  Bias" 
'•'The  Law  of  Sin  and  Death" 


FOREWORD 

The  writer  of  this  article  was  for  upwards  of  twen- 
ty years  a  believer  in  and  student  of  the  philosophy 
of  materialism;  but  after  his  conversion  to  faith  in 
Jesus  Christ  he  rejected  it  in  toto,  first  because  it  was 
found  to  be  contrary  to  the  Scriptures,  and  second, 
because,  upon  careful  investigation,  it  was  also  found 
to  be  opposed  to  every  pertinent  fact  of  history  and 
natural  science. 

As  regards  ''evidence"  in  support  of  the  theory 
there  is  none  that  would  be  admitted  in  anj^  court  of 
law.  It  rests  Avholly  upon  unprovable  assumptions, 
and  upon  highly  speculative  and  far-fetched  infer- 
ences. The  evidence  against  it  is  abundant  and  con- 
vincing; and  while  the  subject  is  so  vast  and  com- 
plex that  we  can  present,  in  an  article  like  this,  only 
a  small  part  of  the  counterproof,  yet  we  can  give  all 
that  is  needed  in  order  to  show  that  the  theory  is  not 
only  unsupported  by  proof,  but  is  opposed  both  to  the 
facts  of  science  and  to  statements  of  Holy  Scripture. 

Our  design,  in  writing  these  pages  (originally  pre- 
pared for  use  in  the  compilation  of  a  Bible  Cyclopedia 
by  the  Bible  Union  of  China)  was  to  set  forth  the  main 
features  of  the  theory  of  Evolution  in  such  a  way  as 
to  make  it  easy  to  be  understood  by  the  unlearned. 
The  exponents  of  science  and  philosophy  usually 
adopt  a  style  and  vocabulary  which  effectually  hide 
their  meaning  from  ''the  common  people,"  and  which 
are  well  calculated  to  produce  the  impression  that  the 
subjects  they  discuss  are  too  mysterious  and  profound 
to  be  understood  by  any  but  the  few  who  (like  them- 
selves) are  gifted  with  intellects  of  a  superior  order, 
and  possessed  of  knowledge  unattainable  by  the  ordi- 
nary man. 

But  the  truth  is  that — ^when  we  disregard  mere  re- 


8  FOREWORD 

finements  of  detail,  and  technicalities  of  a  non-essen- 
tial character — the  doctrine  of  Evolution  in  general, 
and  that  of  the  Origin  of  Species  (the  Darwinian 
hypothesis)  in  particular,  can  be  set  forth  "in  words 
easy  to  be  understood,"  and  can  be  understood  by 
persons  of  ordinary  intelligence  and  of  common 
school  education.    And  furthermore,  the^cienjtist  and 

^philosopher  have  no  /acts  upon  which  to  base  their 
concl]^siaii§^_jxcept  such  as   are  matters  of  common 

'  tnoSedge^XLr  are  ^accessible  to  all  men  through  text=. 
^^o^s  and_cyciQpedia|7J^  concede  to  experts 

theiF'special  competence  in  investigating,  clarifying, 
and  setting  forth  the  facts ;  but,  in  the  all  important 
matter  of  drawing  conclusions  from  those  facts,  the  ex- 
pert has  no  greater  ability  than  the  ordinary  persons, 
of  whom  juries — which  in  common-law  cases  are  the 
sole  judges  of  the  facts — are  composed.  It  is  for  the 
benefit  of  these  that  we  are  now  writing;  and  in  sum- 
moning Evolution  to  stand  trial  at  the  bar  of  ordinary 
common  sense,  our  own  function  will  be  mainly  to 
present  the  pertinent  facts  as  fully  and  concisely  as 
possible. 

As  regards  the  reasons  commonly  advanced  in  sup- 
port of  the  doctrine  of  Evolution  it  is  one  of  the 
most  palpable  weaknesses  of  the  case  that  the  alleged 
''eiddences"  fonit^haye  Jbo  bjs._^ught-in  ..the  Harkest 
corners  of  creation  andin_the  remotest  regions  of  time 
Sid  space;  and  further  that,  when  brought  into  the 
light  of  honest  inquiry,  they  cannot  be  recognized,  by 
ordinary  persons,  as  having  any  relation  at  all  to  the 
doctrine  they  are  cited  to  sustain.     For  Evolution  is 

,  set  forth  as  a  cosmic  process — that  is,  a  law  operating 

1  always  and  everywhere.  It  is  either  that  or  nothing. 
But,  if  so,  then  the  evidences  of  it  would  be  always 
and  everywhere  apparent.  Whichever  way  we  might 
look  they  would  force  themselves  upon  our  notice,  in 
countless  numbers  and  endless  varieties  of  forms. 
The  proofs  would  be  so  abundant  that  the  demon- 


FOREWORD  9 

strator  of  the  doctrine  would  never  get  to  the  end  of 
them ;  whereas,  as  the  case  actually  stands,  the  efforts 
and  the  ingenuity  of  the  evolutionist  aifijnaioly  occu- 
jned  in  trying  to_  account  with  plausibility  for  the  total 
lack  ofevidence  innatMr£iior  th^upport  of  his  doc- 
trine. 

Another  thing  which  must  impress  every  fair- 
minded  investigator  of  this  modern  theory  is  the  fal- 
lacious character  of  the  reasoning  often  employed  by 
its  advocates.  Take  the  case  of  the  now  extinct  varie- 
ties of  horse  having  three  and  four  toes.  Appeal  i^ 
often  made  to  the  remains  of  those  creatures  as  if  they 
proved  the  whole  case  of  Evolution ;  whereas  they  do' 
not  even  prove  that  the  existing  varieties  of  the  equine , 
species  were  derived  from  those  extinct  forms.  There! 
is  nothing  whatever  to  forbid  the  idea  that  the  present! 
varieties  of  the  species  existed  aLMe-sarneMme  with 
those  now  extinct  forms.  Proof  of  connection  between 
them^  andoi'  derivation  of  the  one'~from  the  other,  is 
wholly  lacking.  But  even  if  such  connection  were  es- 
tablished, it  would  not  tend  in  the  least  to  prove  the 
evolution  of  one  42e£ies_fEQia^.aiiather>  which  is  the 
matter  in  dispute.  That  many  varieties  of  a  common 
species  can  be  produced  is  a  fact  so  abundantly  in 
evidence  in  both  vegetable  and  animal  kingdoms  as 
to  create  a  strong  presumption  that,  if  it  were  pos- 
sible to  cross  the  botindary  lines  of  a  species,  there^ 
would  be  abundant  evidence  of  that  also.  But  the  fact-; 
is  that,  with  all  nature  under  observation,  and  with 
the  plain  records  of  the  f ossilif erous  rocks,  not  one  . 
transitional  form  to  help  bridge  the  gulf  between  one  1 
species  and  another  has  ever  been  found.  The  four- 
toed  horse  is  as  much  a  ''horse"  as  the  one-toed  varie- 
ty. And  Mr.  Darwin  was  himself  compelled  to  con- 
cede all  that  we  here  point  out.  He  said  {Life  and 
Letters,  Vol  III.  p.  25)  :  ''There  are  two  or  three  mil- 
lion of  species  on  earth — sufficient  field,  one  might 
think,  for  observation.    But  it  must  be  said  today  that, 


10  FOREWORD 

in  spite  of  all  the  efforts  of  trained  observers,  not  one 
change  of  a  species  into  another  is  on  record/^  This 
statement  can  be  made  with  even  greater  confidence 
now,  after  a  lapse  of  over  half  a  century  since  Mr. 
Darwin  made  the  above  admission. 

It  is  vain,  therefore,  for  the  evolutionist  to  think  he 
can  ride  upon  the  four-toed  horse  to  a  successful  dem- 
onstration of  his  theory. 

The  Wisdom  of  This  World 

The  doctrine  of  Evolution  is  doubtless  the  culminat- 
ing effort  and  fruit  of  "the  wisdom  of  this  world"; 
and  our  thought  about  it  is  that  God  will  make  use  of 
it  thereby  to  exhibit  the  utter  ''foolishness"  of  human 
wisdom.  Never  has  there  been  a  cosmic  philosophy  set 
forth  with  such  pretentiousness,  or  backed  with  such 
authority  by  "Science";  and  never  has  there  been  a 
doctrine  so  audaciously  proclaimed  in  direct  and  de- 
fiant opposition  to  the  truth  of  Creation,  revealed  in 
the  Holy  Scriptures.  Therefore  the  theory  of  Evolu- 
tion is  pre-eminently  suited  to  exemplify  the  Scrip- 
ture, ^'Hath  not  God  made  foolish  the  wisdom  of  this 
world?''  (1  Cor.  1:20.) 

Framingham,  Mass. 
April,  1922. 


Evolution  at  the  Bar 


CHAPTER  I 


The  Theory  "Evolution"  is  a  philosophical  and 
Defined  speculative    theory,    of    recent    origin, 

whereby  it  is  sought  to  account  for  the 
various  elements  and  compounds  of  the  inorganic 
world,  and  also  for  the  countless  species  of  living 
creatures  in  the  organic  world. 

By  the  ''inorganic  world"  is  meant  the  elements 
and  compounds,  as  minerals  and  gases,  which  are 
without  life;  and  by  the  ** organic  world"  is  meant 
organisms  (plants  and  animals)  which  have  life. 

Although  sometimes  spoken  of  as  a  "scientific" 
theory,  Evolution  is  not  scientific;  for  science  has  to 
do  only  with  facts.  Evolution  belongs  wholly  in  the 
realm  of  speculative  philosophy. 

The  basic  assumption  of  this  theory  is  that  all 
things  in  nature — living  and  not  living — ^had  a  com- 
mon origin;  and  that  all  the  diverse  elements,  com- 
pounds, and  organisms  were  developed  by  the  cumu- 
lative effect  of  changes,  in  themselves  imperceptibly 
small,  all  of  which  changes  were  brought  about  by  the 
energy  of  "forces  resident  in  nature." 

The  theory  assumes  the  existence  of  Matter  and 
Force,  without  attempting  to  account  for  the  origin  of 
either.  Matter  is  supposed  to  have  existed  originally 
in  a  perfectly  simple  and  undifferentiated  condition. 
Its  form  is  supposed  to  have  been  that  of  an  exceed- 
ingly tenuous,  highly  heated  mist  or  vapor,  filling  all 
space.  Force  is  also  assumed  to  have  been  exceeding- 
ly simple  at  the  first,  being  nothing  more  than  a  ten- 


12  EVOLUTION   AT    THE    BAR 

dency  on  the  part  of  the  entire  mass  of  undifferen- 
tiated Matter  to  keep  in  motion.  As  to  where  Matter 
came  from,  and  Force,  and  the  tremendous  uniform 
Heat,  necessary  to  keep  Matter  in  a  gaseous  state,  the 
theory  is  silent. 

The  theory  further  assumes  that,  at  some  time,  and 
for  some  unexplained  reason,  the  motion  of  the  par- 
ticles of  matter  began  to  take  different  directions,  and 
also  that,  by  the  radiation  of  the  heat  of  parts  of  the 
mass,  liquefaction  and  ultimately  solidification  re- 
sulted. Where  the  heat  so  radiated  could  have  gone — 
seeing  that  all  parts  of  infinite  space  were  supposedly 
heated  alike — is  not  explained ;  nor  how,  in  a  perfectly 
uniform  mass,  parts  could  assume  a  permanently 
solid  form,  and  other  parts  a  normally  liquid  form, 
while  other  parts  remained  normally  gaseous.  Upon 
the  theory  of  Cosmic  Evolution  all  gases  and  liquids 
should  long  ago  have  evolved  into  solids. 

These  great  changes  in  Matter  are  supposed  to  have 
been  accompanied  by  equally  notable  changes  in 
Force.  Differences  of  ^'Environment"  having  now 
arisen,  of  which  differences  the  theory  has  no  explana- 
tion, the  effects  of  Force  or  Energy  would  be  in- 
fluenced thereby,  in  such  wise  as  to  produce  diversi- 
ties of  forms,  until,  by  the  continuous  operation  of 
those  processes,  with  ever  increasing  ramifications  and 
complexities,  the  infinite  varieties  of  creatures,  ani- 
mate and  inanimate,  which  now  compose  the  universe, 
came  to  be  what  they  are. 

Such  are  the  words  by  which  the  theory  of  Evolu- 
tion is  set  forth ;  but  the  only  clear  thing,  about  them 
is  that  they  do  not  explain  the  origin  of  the  universe 
or  of  any  of  its  parts. 

Other  principles  are  called  to  the  aid  of  Evolution 
at  different  stages  of  the  cosmic  process ;  e.  g.  Heredi- 
ty, Environment,  Natural  Selection,  Struggle  for  Ex- 
istence, Survival  of  the  Fittest,  Transmission  of  Ac- 
quired Characters,  etc.    "With  these  auxiliary  factors 


EVOLUTION  AT   THE  BAR  13 

we  have  but  little  concern,  our  object  being  to  inquire 
what,  if  any,  foundation  in  fact  there  is  for  the  tasic 
theory.  If  that  falls,  the  auxiliary  factors  must  of 
necessity  fall  with  it. 

According  to  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer,  the  leading  ex- 
ponent of  the  theory,  evolutionary  changes  are  of 
three  principal  sorts:  {!)  a  change  from  a  less  coher- 
ent to  a  more  coherent  state;  (2)  a  change  from  a 
more  homogeneous  to  a  less  homogeneous  state;  (3)  a 
change  from  a  less  definite  to  a  more  definite  state. 

Le  Conte  defines  Evolution  as  ''  (1)  continuous  pro- 
gressive change,  (2)  according  to  fixed  laws,  (3)  by 
means  of  resident  forces." 

It  is  important  to  note  the  expression  ''resident 
forces,"  which  excludes  the  idea  of  a  Creator  acting 
in  or  upon  the  universe. 

Such  is  the  theory  in  its  broad  outlines;  and  it  is 
evident  that  thus  far  it  is  wholly  imaginative  and 
speculative,  every  essential  feature  being  assumed 
without  a  particle  of  proof.  Indeed  it  may  be  clearly 
seen  that  the  theory  is  self-contradictory,  as  in  assum- 
ing that  (under  the  supposed  conditions)  latent  heat 
could  discharge  so  as  to  permit  concentration  to  take 
place,  when  there  were  no  cooler  regions  into  which  it 
could  discharge. 

Further  it  is  self-evident  that  the  action  of  Infinite 
Wisdom  and  Power  would  be  as  much  needed  for  the 
creation  of  the  supposed  Matter  and  Force,  with  their 
supposed  capacity  for  development  and  diversifica- 
tion, as  for  the  creation  of  separate  elements,  com- 
pounds, and  living  species.  In  fact  both  Darwin  and 
his  co-laborer  Wallace  had  to  admit  that  it  was  neces- 
sary to  concede,  at  various  points  in  the  supposed  evo- 
lution of  the  world,  as  well  as  at  the  starting  point, 
the  working  of  an  outside  power,  a  power  not  resident 
in  matter.  From  this  admission  it  follows  that  there 
is  nothing  ''unscientific"  in  the  doctrine  of  Creation 
by  an  intelligent  Creator. 


14  EVOLUTION    AT    THE    BAR 

"Cosmic"  Nature  is  seen  to  exist  in  two  great 

and  * '  Organic ' '  departments,  one  comprising  things 
Evolution  having  life,  the  other  things  not  hav- 

ing life.  The  former  is  the  "organ- 
ic ' '  department  of  nature,  the  latter  the  *  *  inorganic. ' ' 
Between  these  two  departments  is  an  impassable  gulf. 
Evolutionists  have  to  concede  this ;  for  as  Mr.  Huxley 
said,  "The  present  state  of  knowledge  furnishes  us 
with  no  link  between  the  living  and  the  not-living." 

This  is  a  fatal  admission;  for  assuredly,  if  the  en- 
tire organic  kingdom  emerged  out  of  the  inorganic, 
there  would  be  innumerable  "links"  between  the  two. 
It  is  simply  impossible  that  all  traces  of  such  a  stupen- 
dous transformation  should  have  been  obliterated. 

To  accommodate  the  theory  to  this  state  of  the  divi- 
sion of  nature,  Evolution  has  been  correspondingly 
divided  into  "Organic  Evolution"  and  "Inorganic" 
or  "Cosmic  Evolution.'  Thus  we  have,  at  present, 
two  distinct  Evolutions,  each  rigidly  confined  to  its 
own  department  of  nature.  The  original  Evolution, 
which  evolved  living  creatures  out  of  inanimate  mat- 
ter, no  longer  exists.  It  has  gone  entirely  out  of  busi- 
ness, and  has  ceased  to  exist  from  the  time,  whenever 
it  was,  that  the  world  of  living  creatures  was  sepa- 
rated, by  an  impassable  barrier,  from  the  not-living. 
It  would  follow  that  Evolution  is  not  what  it  once 
was.  Having  once  crossed  the  line  which  separates 
the  living  from  the  not-living  it  has  lost  the  power  to 
do  so  again. 

Cosmic  Cosmic  Evolution,  or  Evolution  as  it  is 

Evolution  supposed  to  operate  in  the  universe  at 
large — the  starry  heavens,  the  earth  and 
sea  and  air — calls  for  but  brief  notice  in  this  article. 
Proof  of  the  existence,  either  now  or  in  past  ages,  of 
any  such  "law"  as  that  of  Evolution,  is  altogether 
lacking.  Suffice  it,  therefore,  to  say  that  if,  anywhere 
in  the  universe,  at  any  stage  of  its  existence,  undif- 


EVOLUTION   AT   THE   BAR  16 

ferentiated  matter  has  been  gradually  transformed  by 
means  of  resident  forces,  into  the  various  substances 
of  earth,  sea,  and  sky,  with  their  widely  different  and 
often  antagonistic  properties,  there  has  never  been 
discovered  by  mortal  man  the  shadow  of  a  shade  of  a 
proof  thereof.  The  results  of  all  investigations  that 
have  been  made  up  to  the  present  hour  bear  accordant 
witness  to  the  fact  that  stability  of  forms  and  of  the 
properties  of  inorganic  substances,  is  the  fixed  rule  of 
nature.  Those  who  accept  the  idea  of  Cosmic  Evolu- 
tion must  needs  do  so  without  any  evidence  whatever 
to  support  it,  for  none  exists. 

Organic  How  then  stands  the  case  with  respect  to 
Evolution  '' Organic  Evolution"?  Is  it  any  better 
supported  than  "Cosmic  Evolution"? 
In  this  field  it  will  be  necessary  to  make  a  closer  ex- 
amination of  facts  and  phenomena;  for  living  crea- 
tures do  undergo  changes.  In  fact  their  existence  is 
one  of  continuous  change. 

What  characterizes  the  organic  department  of  na- 
ture is  the  existence  of  individuals,  each  living  an  in- 
dependent life  of  its  own,  and  each  having  its  own 
life-history.      Each    of    these    individual    organisms 
comes  suddenly  into  being;  it  goes  through  various 
stages  of  growth  until  maturity  is  reached;  it  repro- 
duces its  kind ;  it  declines  and  suddenly  ceases  to  exist. 
This  is  what  we  find  throughout  the  entire  organic 
field.    But  there  is  nothing  in  the  inorganic  depart- 
ment of  nature  which  even  remotely  resembles  this 
life-story  of  individuals.    That  field  will  be  searched 
in  vain  for  anything  out  of  which  the  details  of  the 
organic  world,  comprising  several  millions  of  species, 
each  with  an  infinitude  of  structural  and  other  pecu- 
liarities, could  conceivably  have  been  evolved.  Yet,  the 
theory  of  Evolution,  as  an  universal  or  cosmic  proc- 
ess,  requires  us   to   believe  that  the  entire   organic 
world  emerged,  at  some  past  era,  from  the  inorganic. 


16  EVOLUTION   AT    THE    BAR 

Surely,  if  such  were  indeed  the  case,  then  the  latter 
would  contain  abundant  evidences  thereof,  showing 
how  individual  entities,  with  their  characteristic  life- 
changes,  came  into  existence.  And  not  only  so,  but 
we  should  also  find  everywhere  inorganic  groupings  of 
atoms  gradually  reaching  forth  towards  organic  ex- 
istence; and  most  certainly  it  would  be  possible  by 
laboratory  methods  to  transform  the  one  into  the 
other. 

Due  notice  should  also  be  taken  of  the  striking  fact 
that  the  beginning  of  the  existence  of  each  living  crea- 
ture is  sudden,  that  its  term  of  life  is  short,  and  that 
its  changes  are  rapid.  Whereas  Evolution  requires  a 
very  gradual  coming  into  existence,  exceedingly  long 
histories,  and  changes  of  prodigious  slowness.  The 
fact  then  is  that,  in  the  field  of  the  living,  as  in  that 
of  the  not-living,  there  is  no  evidence  whatever  in  sup- 
port of  evolution ;  but  on  the  contrary  every  fact  and 
phenomenon  cognizable  by  the  senses  strongly  contra- 
dicts that  theory.  This  will  become  more  and  more 
apparent  as  we  proceed. 


CHAPTER  II 

Breaks  in  the  As  we  trace  in  imagination  the  sup- 
Continuity  posed  course  of  evolution  from  its  as- 
sumed beginning  in  undifferentiated 
matter  onward  and  upward  to  the  infinite  diversities 
of  the  organic  kingdom,  we  not  only  encounter  diffi- 
culties at  every  step  and  in  connection  with  every  de- 
tail, but  we  also  find  certain  gaps,  deep  and  wide,  for 
which  evolutionists  themselves  can  offer  no  definite  ex- 
planation. The  first  and  greatest  of  these  is  the  gap 
between  the  living  and  the  not  living.  The  entire 
world  of  living  creatures  is  assumed  to  have  emerged, 
sometime  and  somehow,  and  through  ''resident 
forces,"  out  of  the  inorganic  realm.  Yet  no  trace  of 
this  marvellous  process  remains,  and  the  inorganic 
world  exhibits  no  progressiveness  at  all,  no  power  or 
disposition  to  advance  one  hair's  breadth. 

The  next  gap  is  that  between  the  vegetable  and  ani- 
mal kingdoms.  If  the  latter,  in  its  entirety,  arose  out 
of  the  former  through  gradual  and  infinitesimal 
changes,  no  trace  of  that  marvellous  development  re- 
mains; nor  can  there  be  found  in  the  vegetable  king- 
dom anything  from  which  the  characteristic  features 
of  animal  life  could  be  evolved. 

Next  we  encounter  the  great  gap  between  the  ver- 
tebrates and  the  invertebrates ;  then  that  between  the 
mammals  and  other  vertebrates;  then  the  gaps  be- 
tween each  of  the  two  million  or  so  of  distinct  species 
of  organisms  and  every  other ;  and  finally  the  immense 
gap  between  Man  and  the  highest  of  the  brutes. 

In  considering  these  great  gaps,  and  the  many  lesser 
ones,  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  Evolution  is  set 
forth  expressly  as  a  theory  of  origins,  that  is  to  say, 


Aj^Jj^^^ 


18  EVOLUTION    AT    THE    BAR 

as  an  explanation  of  how  all  the  infinite  varieties  of 
things,  living  and  not-living,  came  into  existence. 
But  origins,  including  those  of  the  very  broadest 
kind,  are  just  what  the  theory  conspicuously  fails  to 
explain.  Thus,  to  begin  with,  the  evolutionist  makes 
no  pretence  that  his  theory  can  explain  the  origin  of 
either  Matter  or  Force.  The  existence  of  these  he  must 
take  for  granted,  and  attribute  them  to  an  Unknow- 
able First  Cause. 

The  Origin  Going  on  further  we  come  to  creatures 
of  Life  having  that  mysterious  thing  called  Life. 

Does  Evolution  account  for  the  origin  of 
that?  Quite  the  contrary;  Darwin  himself  declared 
that  spontaneous  generation  is  ''absolutely  incon- 
ceivable." His  co-discoverer,  Alfred  Russel  Wallace, 
says  that  ''the  very  first  vegetable  cell  must  have  pos- 
sessed altogether  new  powers^ ^;  and  he  adds,  "Here 
we  have  indications  of  a  new  power  at  work/^  Hux- 
ley admits  that  there  is  no  evidence  of  any  link  be- 
tween the  living  and  the  not  living ;  and  other  leading 
evolutionists  could  be  quoted  to  the  same  effect.  So, 
just  where  an  explanation  of  the  origin  of  a  new  and 
extraordinary  thing  is  needed.  Evolution — that  great 
theory  of  origins — completely  breaks  down.  Matter 
and  force  do  not  account  for  the  origin  of  life.  There- 
fore Darwin  had  to  accept  the  truth  of  divine  fiat  to 
explain  it.  He  seems,  in  accepting  this  truth,  to  seek, 
by  the  use  of  fine  language,  to  disguise  the  fact  that  it 
is  fatal  to  his  theory.  Note  his  words:  "There  is  a 
grandeur  in  this  view  of  Life,  with  its  several  powers, 
having  been  originally  breathed  by  the  Creator  into 
the  first  forms  or  into  one."  If  so,  then  is  there  not 
the  same  "grandeur"  in  the  view  of  the  direct  action 
of  the  Creator  in  the  origin  of  every  substance  and 
species?  Mr.  Darwin  admits  (because  he  must)  that 
there  is  nothing  "unscientific"  in  assuming  the  direct 
intervention  of  the  Creator  in  originating  the  first  liv- 


EVOLUTION  AT  THE  BAR  19 

ing  forms ;  and  if  so  there  is  nothing  unscientific  in  as-      <v^ 
suming  His  intervention  to  create  all  living  species. 

The  Origin  of  the  Going  still  further,  we  come  to 
Animal  Kingdom  the  animal  kingdom,  whose  spe- 
cies have  powers  (as  locomotion, 
feelings,  etc.)  not  possessed  by  the  vegetable.  What 
has  Evolution  to  say  as  to  the  origin  of  that?  Not  a 
word.  Here  again  Mr.  Wallace  admits  that  the  ad- 
vance from  the  vegetable  to  the  animal  kingdom  is  -- 
"completely  beyond  all  possibility  of  explanation  by 
Matter,  its  laws  and  forces.  It  is  the  introduction  of 
sensation  or  consciousness,  constituting  the  fundamen- 
tal distinction  between  the  animal  and  vegetable 
kingdoms. '  * 

Thus,  in  respect  to  the  origins  of  the  major  divi- 
sions of  nature,  the  theory  of  Evolution  is  a  confessed 
failure.  It  cannot  even  pretend  to  account  for  them. 
This  fact  will  be  emphasized  when  we  come  to  point 
out,  later  on,  that  the  foremost  evolutionists,  includ- 
ing Spencer,  Huxley  and  Romanes,  before  their  death, 
utterly  repudiated  the  Darwinian  theory  of  the  Origin 
of  Species.  It  would  be  difficult  or  impossible  to  find 
a  naturalist  of  the  first  rank  who  would  support  that 
theory  today.  Haeckel  alone,  of  the  older  naturalists, 
stood  for  its  defense ;  and  he  was  utterly  discredited 
because  of  his  audacious  and  unscrupulous  conduct 
in  forging  evidences  to  support  the  theory.  But  we 
would  at  this  point  ask,  what  is  the  value  of,  and  what 
credence  should  be  given  to,  a  Theory  of  Origins 
which  admittedly  is  unable  to  account  for  the  origin 
of  Matter,  Force,  Life,  the  Animal  Kingdom,  and  the 
Species  ? 


Other       Passing  on,  in  our  general  survey  of  nature. 

Origins    and  without  further  reference  at  present  to 

the  Origin  of  Species   (of  which  we  have 

more  to  say  later),  we  come  to  the  Vertebrates,  that  is 


V 


20  EVOLUTION    AT    THE    BAR 

to  say,  that  large  and  superior  order  of  living  crea- 
tures which  have  a  back-bone.  Does  Evolution  give  us 
any  explanation  of  that?  None  whatever.  While  the 
difference  between  the  vertebrates  and  invertebrates  is 
not  so  conspicuous  and  notable  as  that  between  the  liv- 
ing and  not-living,  or  that  between  the  vegetable  and 
animal  kingdom,  yet  Evolution  is  just  as  impotent  to 
explain  the  one  as  the  other.  There  is  not  the  slight- 
est evidence  to  show  that  creatures  having  no  back- 
bone "evolved"  the  many  species  of  vertebrates,  nor 
is  there  even  a  plausible  suggestion  as  to  how  such  a 
thing  could  be  brought  to  pass. 

Looking  further,  we  come  to  the  large  and  impor- 
tant class  of  Mammals,  that  is  to  say,  species  whereof 
the  female  imparts  nourishment  to  its  young  from  the 
breast.  Certain  species  of  vertebrates — the  birds,  rep- 
tiles and  fishes — have  not  this  peculiarity,  nor  any- 
thing approaching  it.  These,  however,  are  far  inferior 
to  those  creatures  whch  have  the  nourishing  breast. 
So  we  ask  again  the  question :  Does  Evolution  account 
for  it?  And  again  the  answer  must  be  in  the  nega- 
tive. There  is  no  connecting  link  between  the  two 
classes;  nor  are  there  any  groups  of  non-mammals 
that  are  reaching  out  to  enter  the  great  class  of  Mam- 
malia. 

We  would  at  this  point  dispose  of  an  unwarranted 
inference  which  is  often  urged  (in  the  total  absence 
of  proofs)  in  support  of  the  theory  of  Evolution. 
That  inference  is  that  because  there  are  many  spe- 
cies which  have  features  in  common — as  back-bones, 
and  nourishing  breasts — those  species  must  have  had 
a  common  origin.  That  is  to  say,  resemblances  are  sup- 
posed to  point  to  an  ancestor  common  to  all.  But  the 
inference  is  without  warrant.  Such  resemblances  are 
just  as  consistent  with  the  dogma  of  Creation  as  with 
the  theory  of  Evolution.  Resemblances  are  to  be  ex- 
pected in  the  works  of  an  all-wise  Creator.  For  when 
He  has  devised  a  contrivance,  as  a  back-bone,  to  serve 


EVOLUTION  AT  THE  BAR  21 

a  certain  purpose,  He  would  inevitably  use  the  same 
device  in  whatever  place  that  purpose  was  to  be 
served,  with  only  such  modifications  and  adaptations 
as  the  varying  needs  of  individual  species  might  re- 
quire. 

We  need  not  continue  any  further,  for  our  present 
purpose,  our  general  survey  of  the  field  of  the  organic 
kingdoms  of  nature.  We  deem  it  sufficient  under  this 
heading  to  say  that,  in  not  one  of  these  orders  and 
species,  and  in  not  one  of  the  countless  billions  of  or- 
ganisms comprised  in  them,  has  there  ever  been  seen 
the  slightest  tendency  to  advance,  or  to  depart  from  its 
type.  On  the  contrary,  there  is  found  in  every  living 
creature  the  most  stubborn  and  unconquerable  deter- 
mination not  to  evolve.  The  whole  universe,  there- 
fore, and  every  member  of  it,  is  a  witness  against  Evo- 
lution. 

Furthermore,  if  Evolution  were  the  law  of  progress 
of  the  universe,  it  is  manifest  that  there  would  be  no 
species  or  other  lines  of  division.  There  would  be  only 
individual  forms,  shading  imperceptibly  one  into  an- 
other, each  in  the  process  of  becoming  something  else, 
so  that  classification  would  be  an  impossibility.  The 
world  that  lies  before  us,  composed  of  clearly  marked 
divisions,  orders,  classes,  species,  all  sharply  defined 
and  separated  one  from  another  by  impassable  bar- 
riers, is  just  the  opposite  of  such  a  world  as  the  sup- 
posed law  of  Evolution  would  produce.  We  can,  there- 
fore, summon  heaven  and  earth,  land  and  sea,  and  all 
the  hosts  of  them  to  bear  witness,  that  Evolution  is 
a  m3i;h. 

Permanence  of  The  matter  of  the  permanence  of 
the  Species  species   deserves   special   considera- 

tion. It  is  admitted  on  all  hands 
that  there  is  no  Evolution  in  the  individual  organism 
— but  that  the  contrary  rule  holds  everywhere.  For 
the  individual  comes  into  being  suddenly,  matures 


^ 


22  EVOLUTION    AT    THE    BAR 

quickly,  reproduces,  and  suddenly  ceases  to  be.  The 
evolutionist,  however,  claims  that  it  is  the  species,  not 
the  individual  organism,  that  has  come  into  existence 
through  Evolution.  The  species,  says  he,  is  governed 
by  the  *'law"  of  Evolution,  though  (strange  to  say) 
the  individuals  which  compose  the  species  are  exempt 
from  it. 

There  is,  however,  a  serious  and  obvious  flaw  in  the 
logic  which  would  distinguish  thus  between  the  in- 
dividual, and  the  species  to  which  it  belongs;  for  the 
species  cannot  exist  apart  from  the  individuals  com- 
posing it,  any  more  than  a  river  can  exist  apart  from 
its  water.  The  species  is  merely  an  abstraction;  and 
there  is  obviously  no  way  a  species  can  evolve,  except 
by  the  evolving  of  all  the  individuals  composing  it. 
Strictly  speaking,  and  for  the  purposes  of  a  discus- 
sion like  this,  ''species"  do  not  exist.  What  exist  in 
nature  are  simply  innumerable  individuals  each  hav- 
ing its  own  life.  Individuals  which  have  life  of  the 
same  sort  are  said  to  constitute  a  ''species."  There- 
fore, evolutionary  changes,  if  they  take  place  at  all, 
must  needs  begin  and  continue  in  individuals. 

It  follows  that,  if  there  be  no  inherent  tendency  in 
individual  organisms  to  depart  from  their  ancestral 
types,  there  could  not  be  any  development  of  new  spe- 
cies. If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  immense  number  of 
existing  species  did  come  into  their  present  state  of 
being  through  evolutionary  changes,  effected  by  res- 
ident forces  (as  distinguished  from  the  act  of  a  Crea- 
tor from  without)  then  we  should  find  no  distinct  spe- 
cies of  pla7its  and  animals,  but  a  very  different  state 
of  things;  for,  instead  of  definite  and  persistent 
types,  we  should  have  a  confusion  of  nondescript  in- 
dividuals, each  in  process  of  becoming  something  dif- 
ferent from  what  its  ancestors  were. 

Evolution  assumes  that  all  things  in  the  organic 
world  are  endowed  with  two  opposite  and  mutually 
antagonistic   tendencies,   first   a  tendency  to  depart 


EVOLUTION   AT   THE  BAR  23 

from  its  ancestral  type  under  the  influence  of  changes 
in  ''environment,"  and  second,  a  tendency  to  hold 
tighily  all  its  pecularities,  and  to  transmit  them  to  its 
offspring.  These  two  tendencies  could  not  exist  in 
the  same  creatures.  The  former  is  purely  imaginary. 
It  is  contrary  to  all  the  observed  facts  of  nature.  For, 
so  far  from  there  being  any  tendency  on  the  part  of 
individuals  to  depart  from  the  ancestral  type,  and  so 
far  from  there  being  any  evidence  of  ''resident 
forces"  in  them,  impelling  them  to  do  so,  the  fact  is — 
always  and  everywhere — that  individual  organisms 
evince  a  most  stubborn  tendency  to  cling  to  the  an- 
cestral type,  despite  all  influences  to  the  contrary. 

This  important  fact  can  be  stated  very  strongly; 
for  scientific  men,  like  Luther  Burbank,  have  sought 
by  every  conceivable  means  to  develop  new  species. 
But,  notwithstanding  some  remarkable  results  in  the 
way  of  "varieties,"  it  has  been  found  (1)  that  the 
barrier  of  species  cannot  he  crossed,  (2)  that  every 
"variety"  produced  artificially,  if  left  to  itself  for  a 
few  generations,  reverts  to  the  original  type.  In  a 
word,  what  we  find  in  each  and  all  the  thousands  of 
species  of  living  creatures  is,  perfect  obedience  to  the 
primal  law  of  their  being,  given  to  them  by  their  Crea- 
tor when  He  said,  "Let  the  earth  bring  forth  grass 
and  herb  yielding  seed,  and  the  fruit-tree  yielding 
fruit  after  his  kind  *  *  *  and  the  living  creature, 
after  his  kind,  cattle,  and  creeping  thing,  and  beast  of 
the  earth,  after  his  kind;  and  it  was  so"  (Gen.  1:11, 
24).  It  was  "so"  then;  and  beyond  all  question  it  is 
"so"  now. 

Here  we  see  that  Evolution  comes  into  direct  col- 
lision both  with  the  facts  of  nature  and  with  the  state- 
ments of  the  Word  of  God. 

Development        A  ' '  species ' '  may  embrace  many  dis- 
of  "Varieties"     tinct  "varieties,"  and  man  has  in- 
deed been  able  to  produce  artificially 
many  varieties  of  existing  species.  But  it  is  always  nee- 


24  EVOLUTION    AT    THE    BAR 

essary  to  maintain  by  artificial  means  the  modifications 
thus  produced,  else  the  individuals  speedily  revert  to 
the  original  ancestral  condition.  Thus,  upon  consid- 
eration of  these  modifications  of  type,  it  is  found  that, 
so  far  from  lending  any  support  to  the  theory  of  Evo- 
lution, they  furnish  a  strong  argument  against  it. 
For  it  is  essential  to  that  theory  that  modifications, 
when  of  advantage  to  the  possessor,  should  become 
fixed  in  the  family,  and  be  carried  forward  to  all  suc- 
ceeding generations.  But  what  w^  find  in  actual  ex- 
perience is  just  the  reverse. 

Moreover,  while  varieties  without  number  can  be 
easily  produced,  it  has  been  found  impossible,  even  in 
a  single  instance,  to  cross  the  line  of  species.  Thus, 
we  see  many  varieties  of  dog.  The  canine  species  in- 
cludes the  great  shaggy  St.  Bernard,  and  the  diminu- 
tive smooth  skinned  terrier.  But  in  every  case  it  is  a 
dog,  and  is  recognized  by  his  fellow  dogs  as  such. 
No  amount  of  breeding,  or  cross-breeding,  could  ever 
make  him  anything  but  a  dog. 

Indeed  it  is  demonstrable  that  the  species  are  abso- 
lutely fixed;  and  that  so  far  from  there  being  a  gen- 
eral tendency  on  the  part  of  all  animate  creatures  to 
depart  from  the  ancestral  type,  there  is,  on  the  con- 
trary, found  to  be  an  invariable  and  inexorable  law, 
which  absolutely  forbids  such  departure.  Since  we 
regard  this  fact  as  fatal  to  the  Darwinian  theory  of 
the  origin  of  species,  we  will  give  the  explanation  of 
it  in  the  words  of  a  famous  evolutionist,  Mr.  Huxley, 
who  says : 

**If  you  breed  from  the  male  and  female 
of  the  same  race,  you  of  course  have  off- 
spring of  the  like  kind ;  and  if  you  make  the 
offspring  breed  together,  you  obtain  the  same 
result;  and  if  you  breed  from  these  again, 
you  will  still  have  the  same  kind  of  offspring. 
There  is  no  check.    But  if  you  take  members 


EVOLUTION  AT  THE  BAR  25 

of  two  distinct  species,  however  similar  they 
may  be  to  each  other,  and  make  them  breed 
together,  you  will  find  a  check.  If  you  cross 
two  such  species,  then,  although  you  may  get 
offspring  in  the  case  of  the  first  cross,  yet  if 
you  attempt  to  breed  from  the  products  of 
that  crossing  (which  are  what  are  called 
hybrids)  that  is,  if  you  mate  a  male  and  a 
female  hybrid,  then  the  result  is  that  in 
ninety-nine  cases  out  of  a  hundred  you  will 
get  no  offspring  at  all.'' 

"We  need  not  inquire  the  explanation  of  this, 
though  Mr.  Huxley  says,  *'the  reason  is  quite  obvious 
in  some  cases ' ' ;  for  the  fact  is  admitted  on  all  hands. 

Now  what,  we  would  ask,  is  the  inference  to  be 
drawn  from  this  fact?  Certainly  it  follows  that  the 
evolution  of  one  species  from  another  is  an  impos- 
sibility ,•  so  that,  at  this  point  again,  the  theory  breaks 
down  completely.  Indeed  we  can  read  as  much  be- 
tween the  lines  of  the  admission  which  Mr.  Huxley 
himself  is  constrained,  though  with  manifest  reluc- 
tance, to  make.    He  says : 

*' After  much  consideration,  and  assuredly 
with  no  bias  against  Mr.  Darwin 's  views,  it  is 
our  clear  conviction  that,  as  the  evidence 
stands,  it  is  not  absolutely  proven  that  a 
group  of  animals,  having  all  the  characters 
exhibited  by  'species'  in  nature,  has  ever 
been  originated  by  selection,  whether  arti- 
ficial or  natural.'^  And  again;  ''Our  accept- 
ance of  the  Darwinian  hypothesis  must  be  ; 
provisional  so  long  as  one  link  in  the  chain  of 
evidence  is  wanting;  and  so  long  as  all  the 
animals  and  plants  certainly  produced  by 
selective  breeding  from  a  common  stock  are 
fertile  with  one  another,  that  link  will  be 
wanting. ' ' 


26  EVOLUTION    AT    THE    BAR 

Later  on  Mr.  Huxley  definitely  rejected  the  Dar- 
winian theory,  as  we  will  point  out  hereafter. 

Repro-  We  have  referred  in  the  foregoing  pages  to 
duction  the  power,  inherent  in  all  living  creatures, 
to  reproduce  their  kind.  This  universal 
fact,  which  obviously  is  essential  to  the  continuance 
of  every  species,  raises  the  important  question, . /lo^o. 
did  the  power  of  reprochiction  originate^  It  is  evi- 
'dent  that ^/le  very  first  (as  well  as  all  subsequent)  or- 
ganisms must  have  possessed  this  marvellous  power. 
Whence  then  did  it  come?  Manifestly  it  could  not 
have  arisen  by  a  gradual  process  of  Evolution ;  for  the 
very  first  organisms  must  have  had  it  in  the  same  per- 
fection as  their  offspring.  Here  again  the  doctrine  of 
Creation  appears  to  great  advantage  in  comparison 
with  the  defective  theory  of  Evolution ;  for,  as  a  prom- 
inent part  of  the  inspired  description  of  Creation,  are 
the  words:  ''Grass,  and  herb  yielding  seed  after  his 
kind''  etc.  Those  words  fully  account  for  the  power 
of  reproduction  possessed  by  all  living  creatures. 

In  concluding  under  this  heading  we  want  to  say 
that  it  would  suffice  to  put  the  case  for  Evolution  en- 
tirely out  of  court  that  there  should  be  found  no  evi- 
dence sufficient  in  character  and  amount  to  establish 
it.  But  the  case  against  it  is  far  stronger  than  that. 
For  even  those  who  give  no  weight  to  the  testimony  of 
the  Bible  on  this  point,  have  to  admit  that  there  are 
no  observable  tendencies  on  the  part  of  any  one  of 
the  billions  of  living  creatures  to  depart  from  the  an- 
cestral type,  but  that,  per  contra,  where  variations 
have  been  produced  artificially,  they  are  but  slight 
in  character,  and  the  tendency  is  invariably  to  go 
backward  and  not  forward.  This  is  a  strong  disproof 
of  Evolution. 


CHAPTER  III 

Science  not  In  this  chapter  we  propose  to  examine 
an  Authority  the  reasons  usually  advanced  in  sup- 
port of  the  theory  of  Evolution. 
Those  reasons  relate  entirely  to  Organic  Evolution, 
or  the  Origin  of  Species  and  the  ** Descent  of  Man"; 
for  there  is  (so  far  as  we  are  aware),  no  pretence 
that  any  facts  are  known  from  which  the  theory  of 
Cosmic  Evolution  could  be  inferred. 

It  should  be  pointed  out,  before  entering  upon  this 
examination,  that  it  is  easy  to  impose  upon  the  ma- 
jority of  people  by  an  appeal  to  ''Science"  as  an  au- 
thority. Thus,  we  often  hear  it  said,  **  Science  has 
discovered  this,"  or  ''Science  tells  us  that,"  as  if 
the  matter  were  thereby  conclusively  settled.  But 
it  would  be  well  to  ask,  who  is  "Science"?  and  where 
does  he  live  1  And  how  comes  he  to  know  these  things  ? 
The  fact  is  there  is  no  "Science"  in  this  sense.  It  is 
true  that  a  few  capable  men  have  attempted  to  ex- 
plore the  field  of  Nature  in  various  directions,  and 
have  ascertained  a  fact  or  two,  to  which  they  have 
added  a  thousand  guesses.  But  they  have  left  a  mil- 
lion questions  unanswered,  without  which  no  safe 
conclusions  can  be  drawn.  It  is  the  commonest 
thing  for  "Science"  to  contradict  one  day  what  it 
most  positively  asserted  the  day  previous;  so  that,  in 
view  of  the  existing  state  of  complete  scientific  igno- 
rance on  the  subject  of  origins,  it  would  be  absurd  to 
accept  as  true  any  statement  on  that  subject  in  the 
name  of  "Science." 

A  few  years  ago  Mr.  Thomas  A.  Edison,  comment- 
ing upon  the  boasted  progress  of  Science,  said  that 
if  the  same  rate  of  progress  were  maintained  for  the 
next  two  thousand  years,  mankind  might  then  be  in  a 
position  to  begin  to  draw  conclusions. 


28  EVOLUTION   AT    THE    BAR 

Reasons  Given  In  examining  the  reasons  that  are 
in  Support  of  commonly  given  in  support  of  the 
Evolution  theory,  we  shall  select  those  which 

are  deemed,  by  its  advocates,  to  be 
the  strongest.  These  are  (1)  the  changes  which  are 
observed  to  occur  in  the  embryo  of  the  human  spe- 
cies from  its  first  beginning  to  its  full  development, 
which  changes  are  assumed  to  be,  in  their  order  and 
character,  a  recapitulation  of  the  changes  through 
which  the  species  itself  is  supposed  to  have  passed  in 
the  course  of  its  development;  (2)  the  succession  of 
living  forms  in  time ;  it  having  been  ascertained  from 
geological  researches,  that  the  more  simple  forms  of 
life  are,  generally  speaking,  found  in  the  lower  strata 
of  rocks,  and  those  more  complex  higher  up. 

Embryolo^  We  put  this  argument  first  because 
(a)  it  is  generally  deemed  the  strongest, 
and  (b)  it  is  from  out  of  the  studies  of  changes  in 
the  embryo  {embryology)  that  the  idea  of  Evolution 
sprang.  So  we  have  now  the  opportunity  to  exam- 
ine the  theory  at  its  point  of  origin. 

The   argument   from   embryology   consists   of   two 
suppositions,  for  neither  of  which  is  there  any  proof 
whatever.    First  it  is  assumed  that  the  human  species 
did  evolve  by  gradual  changes,  passing  from  a  simple 
uni-cellular  creature,  such  as  the  Amoeba,  through 
successively  higher  species  until  it  became  Man;  and 
second,  it  is  assumed  that  the  human  embryo  passes 
through  the  same  changes  in  its  prenatal  history  of 
about  nine  months.    Manifestly  we  have  here  no  proof 
of  Evolution ;  for  in  this  argument.  Evolution  is  taken 
Vfor  granted.    It  cannot  be  possibly  known  whether  the 
Ichanges  of  the  embryo  are  a  resume  of  the  history  of 
(development  of  the  species,  until  it  is  known  what 
]that  history  tvas.    Therefore  we  are  thrown  back  up- 
on the  question,  can  Evolution  be  certainly  inferred 
from  the  changes  of  the  embryo? 


EVOLUTION  AT   THE  BAR  29 

First  let  it  be  observed  that  there  is  no  proved  or 
necessary  relationship  between  the  growth  of  the  em- 
bryo and  the  history  of  its  species.  If  indeed  the  em- 
bryo does  perform,  in  the  short  space  of  nine  months, 
the  stupendous  feat  of  changing  from  Amoeba  to  Man, 
passing  swiftly  through  all  the  intervening  species, 
it  would  be  a  most  miraculous  and  supernatural  thing, 
whereof  it  were  vain  to  seek  an  explanation  in  the 
sphere  of  nature.  Evolution,  however,  is  exceedingly 
sloiv.  It  demands  millions  of  years  to  effect  slight 
changes.  It  denies  and  excludes  the  miraculous  from 
the  sphere  of  nature.  It  cannot,  therefore,  assume  a 
prodigious  miracle  in  its  own  support.  The  supposed 
transformations  of  the  embryo  tend  not  in  the  slight- 
est to  prove  the  truth  of  the  theory.  Those  changes, 
like  all  others  in  the  history  of  a  living  creature,  be- 
long in  the  category  of  the  mysteries  of  life,  concern- 
ing which  science  has  been  able  thus  far  to  give  no 
explanation  whatever.  * '  The  way  of  the  tree  of  life ' ' 
(Gen.  3:24)  has  been  effectually  kept  from  all  prying 
investigators. 

But  let  us  go  deeper  into  the  subject,  and  ask,  what 
are  the  changes  which  take  place  in  the  human  em- 
bryo? And  do  they  really  constitute  an  evolution? 
Upon  pressing  this  inquiry  we  find  first,  that  the  like- 
ness of  the  human  embryo  to  that  of  other  creatures 
at  different  stages  of  its  growth  is  a  mere  superficial 
resemblance;  for  even  the  evolutionist  would  not  pre- 
tend that  there  is  any  essential  likeness  between  them  ; 
and  second,  that  even  in  those  superficial  and  tran- 
sient resemblances  the  growth  of  the  embryo  does  not 
go  through  the  stages  of  the  supposed  development  of 
man.    These  objections  are  fatal. 

1.  In  a  case  of  this  sort,  superficial  resemblances 
count  for  nothing;  for  beneath  them  there  are,  in 
fact,  vital  differences.  The  human  embryo  is,  at  all 
stages  of  its  growth,  the  human  embryo.  It  is  at  every 
stage,  essentially  different  from  that  of  the  worm,  the 


30  EVOLUTION   AT   THE    BAR 

fish,  and  from  that  of  every  other  mammal.     Prof. 
Fairhurst  says: 

''It  is  evident  that  while  all  eggs,  from  that  of 
the  sponge  to  that  of  man,  may  seem  to  be  alike 
in  structure,  they  are  really  as  far  apart  in  their 
essential  nature  as  are  the  fully  developed  sponge 
and  the  full-grown  man.  Taking  the  embryos  of 
man  and  fish  the  argument  of  the  evolutionist  is 
as  follows:  The  embryos  of  man  and  fish,  at  a 
certain  stage  of  development,  are  closely  alike 
in  appearance;  therefore,  man  and  fish  had  a 
common  ancestral  origin.  The  conclusion  which 
the  evolutionist  draws  is  based  upon  a  mere  seem- 
ing and  very  transient  resemblance,  while  the 
fact  that  the  two  embryos  are  essentially  unlike 
is  shown  by  the  vast  distance  apart  at  which 
they  arrive  by  development.  It  is  true  that  the 
embryos  of  vertebrates  look  much  more  alike  than 
do  the  adults,  and  that  the  eggs  are  still  nearer 
alike  in  appearance  than  are  the  embryos;  but  I 
insist  again  that  the  embryos  are  no  nearer  to- 
gether in  essential  structure  than  the  adults. 
The  egg  which  can  be  developed  into  a  man  is 
just  as  different  in  nature  from  the  egg  of  a  fish, 
as  the  man  is  from  the  fish.  The  eggs  are  essen- 
tially unlike.  The  essential  qualities  of  eggs  are 
beyond  the  power  of  the  microscope  to  reveal. 
The  human  embryo  is  produced  hy  human  be- 
ings only;  and  whatever  may  be  its  miscroscopic 
appearance,  it  is  at  every  stage  of  its  develop- 
ment strictly  human.  Embryology,  as  applied  to 
Evolution,  fails  in  that  it  deals  only  with  the 
surface  of  things.*' 

Thus  the  strongest  argument  of  the  evolutionist 
breaks  down  completely  for  the  reason  that  the  facts 
are  the  reverse  of  what  his  theory  calls  for. 

2.    Furthermore,  even  the  superficial  changes  of 


EVOLUTION  AT   THE  BAR  31 

the  human  embryo  do  not  represent  anything  like! 
the  complete  line  of  the  supposed  human  ancestry.] 
Prof.  Fairhurst  says  that  the  entire  first  half  of  the 
history  of  Evolution  is  not  even  hinted  at  in  the  epi- 
tome    {Organic    Evolution    Considered,    p.     147). 
Further  he  says: 

* '  There  are  radical  differences  between  the  em- 
bryos of  vertebrates  and  invertebrates.  Worms 
and  other  articulates  in  embryo  lie  doubled 
backwards  around  the  yolk,  while  all  vertebrates 
are  doubled  in  the  opposite  direction.  According 
to  the  theory  that  the  embryonic  condition  is  a 
recapitulation  of  the  stages  of  organic  evolution, 
this  fundamental  fact  of  invertebrate  embryology 
ought  to  have  been  preserved  by  the  vertebrate. 
Evolution  gives  no  account  of  this  reversal  of 
position  by  the  vertebrates." 

There  are  other  gaps  in  the  succession  of  changes 
through  which  the  embryo  passes;  but  it  is  needless 
to  speak  of  them.  Enough  has  been  said  to  show  that 
the  argument  from  embryology  is  not  only  a  far- 
fetched inference,  but  that  the  facts  are  the  reverse 
of  what  the  inference  calls  for. 

It  is  of  interest  to  note  that  Dr.  Eomanes,  one  of 
the  most  extreme  of  evolutionists,  declared  the  facts 
of  embryology  to  be  ''the  most  important  of  the  lines 
of  evidence"  in  support  of  Evolution.  While  hold- 
ing those  views  he  wrote  strongly  against  the  Bible 
doctrine  of  Creation,  and  against  supernaturalism  in 
general.  ''But  later  he  changed  his  views  entirely, 
and  died  in  1894,  confessing  his  faith,  not  only  in  the 
providence  of  God,  but  in  the  deity  of  Christ."  (Fair- 
hurst :  Theistic  Evolution,  p.  11.) 

Succession     The  evolutionist  also  appeals,  in  support 
of  Species      of  his  theory,  to  the  fact  that  the  fossils 
preserved  in  the  sedamentary  rocks  in- 
dicate that  the  various  species  did  not  come  into  exist- 


32  EVOLUTION    AT    THE    BAR 

ence  all  at  once,  but  successively;  and  that  (general- 
ly speaking)  the  simpler  forms  came  first  into 
existence,  and  the  more  complex  later  in  point  of  time. 

To  this  argument  the  obvious  answer  is  that  the  fact 
of  the  successive  appearance  of  the  several  species 
does  not  tend  in  the  least  to  prove  that  the  later  were 
derived  from  the  earlier  by  a  process  of  evolution,  or 
by  any  other  process.     The  succession  of  the  species! 
can  be  explained  by  Creation,  as  well  as  by  Evolution.  I 
In  fact  the  record  of  Creation  in  Genesis  1,  declares! 
that  vegetation  first  appeared  on  earth,  then  fishes, 
then  birds,  then  land  animals,  and  finally  Man.    The 
geological  remains  show  the  same  order.    Manifestly 
then  the  argument  from  succession  of  species  lends  no 
support  whatever  to  the  theory  we  are  discussing. 

But  we  can  go  further  than  this ;  for  when  the  de- 
tails of  the  geological  records,  as  presented  by  the 
science  of  paleontology,  are  examined,  it  is  found 
that  they  bear  heavily  against  the  theory.  This  is 
conceded  by  the  very  foremost  evolutionists,  insomuch 
that,  to  escape  the  force  of  the  paleontological  proofs, 
they  are  driven  to  the  pitiful  expedient  of  supposing 
that  there  have  been  millions  of  extinct  species  and 
transitional  forms  which  have  left  no  trace  of  their 
existence,  and  that  if  by  any  means  the  lost  evidence 
could  be  recovered,  it  would  prove  their  case. 

The  fact  is  that  an  enormous  mass  of  evidence  has 
been  accumulated  by  means  of  geological  researches. 
Here  we  have  the  foot-prints  of  the  distant  past,  the 
records  of  the  periods  which  would  certainly  be  rich 
in  the  evidences  of  the  evolutionary  origin  of  the  va- 
rious species,  if  such  were  indeed  the  nature  of  their 
beginning.  The  evolutionist  examines  this  great  mass 
of  facts  and  finds  nothing  which  supports  his  theory, 
but  much  to  the  contrary.  His  only  comment  on  the 
situation  is  that  Nature  has,  with  invidious  discrim- 
ination, destroyed  the  great  bulk  of  the  evidence,  in- 
cluding every  trace  of  the  operation  of  Evolution,  and 


EVOLUTION  AT  THE  BAR  33 

every  one  of  the  thousand  billion  variant  forms  which 
must  have  existed,  and  has  preserved  only  such  evi- 
dences, and  those  in  great  abundance,  as  oppose  his 
theory.  It  may  be  said  of  this  explanation  that  it  is 
even  harder  to  understand  and  to  accept  than  that 
which  it  purports  to  explain — the  absence  of  all  trace 
of  a  "law"  which  is  said  to  have  operated  universally 
and  from  the  very  beginning  of  time.  The  great  god, 
Evolution,  is  indeed  as  difficult  to  locate  or  find  a  trace 
of  as  the  Olympian  Zeus. 

Imagine  a  litigant  in  court  upon  whom  rests  the 
burden  of  proof.  He  insists  that  the  averments  of j 
his  declaration  are  true,  and  demands  a  verdict  in  his  I 
favor;  but  he  has  no  proofs  to  siistain  his  allegationsJ 
In  fact  all  the  evidence  presented  in  court  is  against 
him.  He  demands,  nevertheless,  that  judgment  be 
rendered  in  his  favor  upon  the  supposition  (a)  that 
volumes  of  proofs,  which  once  existed,  have  been  de- 
stroyed, leaving  no  trace;  and  (b)  that  if  those  proofs 
could  now  be  produced  they  would  be  found  to  be  in 
his  favor!  Such  is  the  absurd  plight  in  which  the 
theory  of  Evolution  now  finds  itself,  as  matters  stand 
at  present. 

As  to  this  important  feature  of  the  discussion  it  is 
enough  to  say  that,  considering  the  great  mass  of  fos- 
silized remains  which  have  been  collected  from  every 
stratum,  and  from  every  part  of  the  world,  the  pre- 
sumption is  that,  if  the  records  were  complete,  the 
parts  now  missing  would  confirm  what  we  have. 

Species  The  first  fossil  remains  of  organisms  are 
Appeared  found  in  the  Primordial  period.  Le  Conte 
Suddenly  says  that  in  it  are  found  ''the  representa- 
tives of  all  the  great  types  of  animals, 
except  the  vertebrates."  Thus,  according  to  the  evi- 
dence (which,  by  Le  Conte 's  statement,  is  massive  in 
quantity  and  clear  in  character),  numerous  highly  or- 
ganized creatures — about  half  the  entire  animal  king- 


34  EVOLUTION    AT    THE    BAR 

doni  in  fact — came  suddenly  and  virtually  simulta- 
neously into  existence.  Of  their  supposed  progenitors, 
of  whom,  if  Evolution  be  true,  countless  billions  must 
have  existed,  not  a  trace  survives  in  the  earlier  forma- 
tions. This  is  the  more  impressive  because  those  ear- 
lier formations  are  estimated  to  have  occupied  about 
half  the  entire  period  of  geological  time. 

(In  this  discussion  we  are  giving  the  evolutionist 
the  advantage  of  supposing,  for  the  purpose  of  the  ar- 
gument, that  his  theory  of  immense  ages  of  geological 
time  is  correct.  That  theory  is,  in  fact,  quite  destitute 
of  supporting  proof,  and  we  wish  it  to  be  understood 
that  we  do  not  accept  it  as  true.) 

Great  Gaps  Another  very  striking  fact  which 

Between  Species  this  earliest  record  of  living  crea- 
Existed  From  tures  presents  is  that,  ''from  the 

the  First  very    beginning   the   great    gulfs 

which  separate  the  animal  kingdom 
into  sub-kingdoms  and  classes  existed  then,  and  have 
continued  till  the  present  time"  (Fair hurst).  Con- 
sidering that  the  interval  from  the  Primordial  period 
until  now  is  estimated  by  physicists  at  fifty  millions 
of  years,  we  have  in  this  fact  of  stability  of  the  spe- 
cies a  conclusive  proof  that  Evolution  is  a  myth. 

Another  striking  fact,  to  which  these  records  bear 
witness,  and  which  is  fatal  to  the  theory,  is  that  every 
species,  as  it  suddenly  appears,  has  its  complete  or- 
ganism; that  is  to  say,  it  is  fully  developed  in  every 
feature  of  its  structure,  however  complex. 

If,  therefore,  we  place  ourselves  in  imagination  in 
the  Primordial  period,  amidst  the  immense  number 
of  varieties  of  living  creatures  then  existent,  whether 
we  look  backward  into  the  past,  or  forward  into  the 
future,  we  see  that  Evolution  had  nothing  whatever 
to  do  with  their  origin  or  development.  In  one  direc- 
tion we  see  no  long  ancestral  line  from  which  they 
were  gradually  evolved ;  for  the  species,  like  each  in- 


EVOLUTION  AT   THE  BAR  35 

dividual  member  thereof,  came  into  being  suddenly. 
This  may  be  termed  ''negative"  evidence.  But  such 
evidence  is  sometimes  conclusive,  as  when  a  thorough 
exploration  of  an  island  reveals  no  remains  what- 
ever of  man  or  human  implements,  it  may  be  con- 
cluded with  certainty  that  it  was  never  inhabited  by 
man. 

But  on  looking  forward  the  evidence  is  positive,  as 
well  as  conclusive.  For  the  very  same  species  found 
in  the  Primordial  era,  and  appearing  suddenly,  are  in 
existence  today  without  substantial  change  of  struc- 
ture or  habit  of  life.  Evolution  requires,  and  of  course 
would  produce,  life-forms  quite  flexible  and  plastic, 
structures  such  that  every  part  of  every  organ  and 
surface  would  be  liable  at  all  times  to  variation,  and 
would  be  subject  to  change  whenever  a  change  of  en- 
vironment occurs.  But  we  find,  on  the  contrary,  ab- 
solute rigidity  of  both  structure  and  habit.  On  this 
evidence  we  are  bound  to  conclude  that  living  crea- 
tures originated  in  a  manner  very  different  from  that 
assumed  by  the  evolutionist. 

As  has  been  already  stated,  the  earliest  geological 
remains  of  organisms  show  lower  and  higher  forms 
of  life  existing  side  by  side.  Now,  according  to  Evo- 
lution, the  former  would  be  the  progenitors  of  the  lat- 
ter; and  upon  that  supposition  there  must  have  been 
already  at  that  early  period  an  immense  evolutionary 
advance,  which  would  imply  that  such  lower  forms 
were  exceedingly  progressive  in  character.  But  this 
supposition  (and  with  it  the  entire  theory)  is  com- 
pletely negatived  by  the  fact  that  those  self-same 
forms  have  persisted  without  change  to  this  very  day. 
Instead  of  being  progressive,  as  Evolution  demands, 
they  are  proven  to  be  absolutely  unprogressive.  Every 
one  of  those  million  forms  is  a  venerable  witness  (50 
million  years  old,  if  our  geologists  are  right)  against 
the  theory  of  Evolution. 

What  reply  has  the   evolutionist  to  these  facts? 


36  EVOLUTION    AT    THE    BAR 

Worse  than  none.  Mr.  Huxley,  one  of  the  ablest  of 
them  all,  and  one  who  openly  devoted  his  great  tal- 
ents to  the  destruction  of  faith  in  Divine  revelation, 
has  faced  these  facts  in  his  address  to  the  Royal 
Geological  Society  in  1870.  He  puts  the  question 
thus: 

''What  then  does  an  impartial  survey  of  the 
positively  ascertained  truths  of  paleontology 
testify  in  relation  to  the  common  doctrines  of 
progressive  modification  (^.  e.  Evolution),  which 
suppose  that  modification  to  have  taken  place 
from  more  to  less  embryonic  forms,  from  more  to 
less  generalized  types,  within  the  limits  of  the 
period  represented  by  the  fossiliferous  rocks?" 
And  he  answers  the  question  by  saying,  * '  I  reply, 
it  negatives  those  doctrines;  for  it  either  shows 
us  no  evidence  of  such  modifications,  or  it  demon- 
strates such  modification  as  has  occurred  to  have 
been  very  slight.  The  significance  of  persistent 
types,  and  the  small  amount  of  change  which  has 
taken  place  even  in  those  forms  which  can  be 
shown  to  have  been  modified,  becomes  greater  and 
greater  in  my  eyes,  the  longer  I  occupy  myself 
with  the  Biology  of  the  past"  (quoted  by  Th. 
Graebner,  in  ''Evolution''). 

The  Fragmen-  The  disappointed  evolutionist  pleads 
tary  Character  the  imperfection  of  the  geological 
of  the  Record  records.  In  order  that  his  theory 
may  not  be  dismissed  for  lack  of 
proof,  he  asks  us  to  believe  that  much  of  the  pertinent 
evidence  has  been  lost,  and  that  what  has  been  lost 
was  in  favor  of  his  theory.  But  Le  Conte  says:  ''We 
think  the  fragmentariness  of  the  geological  record  has 
been  overstated."  And  the  Duke  of  Argyll,  in  his 
Organic  Evolution  Cross-Examined,  shows  conclu- 
sively that,  in  certain  periods,  the  plea  of  imperfec- 
tion of  the  record  is  completely  ruled  out. 


EVOLUTION   AT   THE  BAR  37 

''There  are,"  says  he,  ''some  tracts  of  time  re- 
garding which  our  records  are  as  complete  as  we 
could  desire.  In  the  Jurassic  rocks  we  have  a 
continuous  and  undisturbed  series  of  long  and 
tranquil  deposits,  containing  a  complete  record 
of  all  the  new  forms  of  life  which  were  intro- 
duced during  those  ages  of  oceanic  life.  And 
those  ages  were  as  a  fact  long  enough  to  see  not 
only  a  thick  (1300  feet)  mass  of  deposit,  but  al- 
so the  first  appearance  of  hundreds  of  new  spe- 
cies. These  are  all  as  definite  and  distinct  from 
each  other  as  are  existing  species.  No  less  than 
1850  new  species  have  been  counted,  all  of  them 
suddenly  horn,  all  of  them  lasting  only  for  a 
time,  and  all  of  them  in  their  turn  superseded  by 
still  newer  forms.  There  is  no  sign  of  mixture 
or  of  confusion,  or  of  infinitesimal,  or  of  inter- 
mediate variations.  These  'Medals  of  Creation' 
are  all,  each  of  them,  struck  by  a  new  die,  which 
never  failed  to  impress  itself  on  the  plastic  ma- 
terials of  this  truly  creative  work." 

Could  it  be  shown  that  but  only  one  species  origi- 
nated otherwise  than  by  slight  modification  of  the 
structure  of  pre-existent  species,  that  would  suffice  to 
overthrow  the  theory  of  Evolution.  But  the  science 
of  paleontology  presents  us  with  clear  evidences  of 
thousands  of  species  coming  suddenly  into  existence; 
and  on  the  other  hand  there  is  not  the  faintest  indica- 
tion that  there  was  ever  a  species  that  came  into  be- 
ing in  any  other  way. 

We  have,  therefore,  found  that  what  evolutionists 
put  forward  as  the  strongest  proofs  of  their  theory — 
Embryology  and  Paleontology — yield,  when  closely 
examined,  convincing,  indeed  conclusive,  evidence 
aerainst  it. 


CHAPTER  IV 

Specific  Objections     Evolution  undertakes  to  account 
to  Evolution  for  every  part  of  every  living 

organism,  by  progressive  modifi- 
cations caused  by  resident  forces.  Hence  it  is  not  an 
exaggeration  to  say  that  every  organ  and  member  of 
every  living  creature  supplies  us  with  an  objection  to 
Organic  Evolution.  Our  difficulty,  therefore,  is  not 
for  lack  of  illustrations,  but  rather  which  to  select 
from  the  number  available.  Several  out  of  the  many 
at  our  disposal  will  suffice  to  show  how  completely  the 
theory  breaks  down,  when  we  leave  the  realm  of  vague 
generalities  and  bring  it  to  the  test  of  concrete  facts. 
Before  applying  this  test  we  should  perhaps  state 
that,  according  to  the  Darwianian  theory,  every  organ 
was  evolved  from  what  was  originally  a  very  slight 
variation  (due  to  accident  or  other  cause  unknown), 
which  variation,  hecause  it  proved  useful  to  its  pos- 
sessor, was  transmitted  to  its  offspring ;  and  it  is  sup- 
posed that  the  departure  continued  through  many 
generations  until  at  last  it  became  an  organ — such  as 
an  eye,  an  ear,  a  wing,  with  a  distinct  and  valuable 
function.  Thus  ''Natural  Selection "^  attempts  to 
account  for  the  preservation  of  certain  variations 
from  the  original  stock,  but  not  for  their  production. 
The  main  point  of  the  doctrine  is  that  only  such  acci- 
dental variations  are  preserved  as  are  advantageous 
to  their  possessor.  We  cannot  state  the  theory  more 
definitely  because  its  authors  themselves  are  utterly 
unable  to  suggest  how  Natural  Selection  worked  in 
any  concrete  case — as,  for  example,  in  evolving  the 
wings  of  fowls  and  insects.  Mr.  Darwin  says :  * '  Our 
ignorance  of  the  laws  of  variation  is  profound.  Not 
r  in  one  case  out  of  a  hundred  can  we  pretend  to  assign 


EVOLUTION  AT  THE  BAR  39 

any  reason  why  this  or  that  part  has  varied."  Thus 
we  are  left,  as  Prof.  Fairhurst  says,  *'in  almost  total 
darkness  as  to  the  cause  of  the  most  important  factor 
in  Organic  Evolution." 

The  evolutionist  leaves  us  to  think  out  for  ourselves 
how  the  limitless  number  of  diversities  of  organs, 
members,  instincts,  etc.,  in  all  the  millions  of  living 
species,  came  into  being.  We  see  in  all  of  them  spe- 
cific organs  upon  which  their  existence  or  welfare 
depends.  Natural  Selection  tells  us  that,  at  a  time 
far  back  in  the  past,  their  ancestors  had  none  of  those 
organs,  not  even  those  that  are  vital.  But  it  does  not, 
nor  does  it  attempt  to,  trace  the  development  of  a  sin- 
gle organ,  or  tell  us  what  the  intermediate  creatures 
were  like,  or  how  they  lived  during  the  long  stretches 
of  years  during  which  those  vital  organs  were  being 
evolved.  The  question  is :  How  did  many  generations 
of  species  live  without  organs  whose  functions  are 
vital?  That  is  a  hard  question  even  for  an  evolu- 
tionist. 

Here  then  we  are  in  a  position  to  state  an  objection 
to  which,  so  far  as  we  are  aware,  no  reply  has  ever 
been  made.  It  is  this :  Inasmuch  as  the  evolution  of 
an  organ,  such  as  the  wing  of  a  fowl,  would  require 
many  centuries  of  time,  and  many  generations  from 
parent  to  offspring  to  bring  it  to  a  useful  stage  of  de- 
velopment, how  is  it  possible  to  account  for  its  pres- 
ervation during  the  long  period  when  it  was  an  un- 
developed and  useless  appendage?  Natural  Selection 
purports  to  account  for  the  preservation  only  of  such 
variations  as  are  useful  to  the  possessor  in  ''the  strug- 
gle for  existence."  The  facts  of  nature  force  that 
limitation  upon  the  theory,  inasmuch  as  the  existing 
organs  and  members  are  such  as  are  of  some  use  or 
advantage.  The  theory  cannot  admit  of  the  perpetua- 
tion of  useless  organs  and  structural  features,  for  such 
do  not  exist.  But,  upon  looking  closely  at  the  matter, 
we  perceive  that  every  organ — such  as  an  arm,  an  eye, 


40  EVOLUTION    AT    THE    BAR 

an  ear — however  advantageous  when  fully  developed, 
must  have  been  preceded  (if  the  theory  be  true)  by 
an  exceedingly  long  period  during  which  it  would 
have  been  not  merely  useless,  but  often  a  positive  (its- 
advantage.  It  follows  that  Natural  Selection,  by  its 
own  necessary  limitations,  cannot  account  for  the  de- 
velopment of  any  organ  which  must  needs  pass 
through  a  period  of  non-usefulness.  Hence  the  theory 
breaks  down  completely. 

TheWing^  Consider,  for  example,  the  wing  of  a 
of  Fowls  fowl  (an  illustration  used  most  effective- 
ly by  Prof.  Luther  T.  Townsend,  and 
quoted  in  Dr.  Leander  S.  Keyser's  Contending  for  the 
Faith).  Here  is  a  very  highly  organized  structure, 
certainly  most  important  to  its  possessor.  It  is  a  won- 
der of  design,  and  the  very  perfection  of  workman- 
ship in  every  detail,  down  to  the  tiniest  feature  of  the 
smallest  feather.  Whether  we  regard  the  design,  or 
the  construction,  or  the  material,  we  see  perfection  in 
each  and  all.  But  we  find  on  the  back  of  every  bird 
not  one  wing,  but  two,  practically  identical  in  every 
feature.  Moreover,  they  are  symmetrically  placed, 
and  in  the  most  advantageous  position  for  the  purpose 
for  which,  upon  the  theory  of  Creation,  we  should  say 
they  were  intended.  But,  according  to  Evolution, 
those  wings  must  have  been  developed  each  quite  inde- 
pendently of  the  other,  from  what  was  at  first  an  ac- 
cidental hump  or  protuberance  on  the  back  of  a  f  eath- 
erless  reptile.  They  must,  moreover,  have  been 
perpetuated,  with  steadily  progressive  development, 
keeping  pace  with  one  another,  through  the  progeny  of 
countless  generations,  during  all  of  which  time,  these 
unnatural  excrescences  would  be,  not  an  advantage, 
but  decidedly  an  encumbrance  to  their  possessors.  But 
this  could  not  go  on  under  the  "law"  of  Natural  Se- 
lection; for  that  ''law"  tolerates  only  the  fostering  of 
useful  variations.     Hence  Natural  Selection  would 


EVOLUTION  AT  THE  BAR  41 

quickly  destroy  such  variations.  But  conversely  the 
wings  of  the  fowl  destroy  Natural  Selection.  Evolu- 
tion cannot  account  for  wings,  either  by  Natural 
Selection  or  by  any  other  supposed  method  of  work- 
ing. Many  able  evolutionists  have  admitted  this 
(Herbert  Spencer  among  them)  ;  yet  they  cling  to 
Evolution,  notwithstanding  the  impossibility  of  pro- 
posing a  method  by  which  it  could  work.  Is  it  be- 
cause they  cannot  bear  the  alternative  of  recognizing 
Creation  and  the  Creator? 

The  Bat  We  would  cite  in  this  connection  the  in- 
andthe  structive  case  of  the  bat,  quoting  from 
Mole  Prof.  Th.  Graebner:  ''The  bat,"  says  he, 

''is  another  highly  specialized  animal. 
"In  many  respects  it  resembles  the  mole;  but 
its  hands  are  enormously  expanded,  and  the  ex- 
ceedingly long  fingers  are  connected  by  a  soft 
membrane,  making  a  most  serviceable  wing.  Is  it 
not  extremely  likely,  assuming  the  development 
theory  to  be  true,  that  the  mole  and  the  bat 
sprang  from  a  common  ancestor?  And  was  not 
that  ancestor  probably  a  wingless  mammal? 
How  then  came  the  bat  to  acquire  his  wings? 
Did  he  attempt  to  spring  into  the  air  to  seize  a 
passing  insect,  reaching  out  his  fore-paws  to 
catch  it?  And  did  those  paws  gradually  become 
enlarged  until^  after  some  generations,  they  be- 
came real  wings?  If  so,  what  happened  in  the 
meantime  to  those  connecting  links  whose  wings 
were  but  partly  developed?  A  bat  with  wings 
only  half  grown  would  be  a  helpless  creature,  and 
would  surely  perish.  There  is  no  middle  ground. 
If  the  ancestor  of  the  bat  was  a  terrestrial  crea- 
ture, with  limbs  fitted  for  walking,  then  it  must 
have  given  birth  to  a  full-fledged  bat,  fitted  for 
flying.     There  could  have  been  no  middle  stage; 


42  EVOLUTION    AT    THE    BAR 

for  such  a  creature  would  have  been  helpless  and 
must  have  perished. 

''All  this  applies  with  equal  force  to  the  diver- 
sified and  often  highly  complex  structure  of 
plants.  As  the  organs  of  the  various  plants  are 
now  constituted  they  serve  most  admirably  their 
respective  purposes.  Given  a  slight  change,  an 
undevelopment,  and  the  individual  would  perish. 
But  such  undeveloped  stages  must  necessarily 
have  occurred  in  the  history  of  every  life- form  on 
earth,  if  a  change  through  slow  adaptations  is  to 
be  accepted  as  an  hypothesis  to  account  for  their 
present  form.  To  our  mind  this  matter  of  rudi- 
mentary structures  presents  an  insuperable  ob- 
stacle to  acceptance  of  the  evolutionary  hypothe- 
sis, even  on  scientific  grounds." 

We  have  thus  far  considered  only  the  subject  of 
wings,  seeking  to  imagine  how  those  wonderful  organs, 
so  vital  to  their  possessors,  could  have  been  evolved. 
But  manifestly  whatever  organ  or  member,  external 
or  internal,  of  whatever  creature  we  might  select,  it 
would  be  equally  impossible  to  trace  any  line  of  devel- 
opment for  it,  whether  by  Natural  Selection  or  any 
other  method  of  Evolution  that  has  been  proposed.  It 
is  obvious  that  humps,  excrescences  and  other  abnor- 
malities, are  'blemishes;  and  the  more  they  might  be  de- 
veloped, short  of  acquiring  a  new  function  (as  sight, 
hearing,  flying)  they  would  be  a  great  (^mdvantage 
to  their  possessors.  Such  abnormalities,  moreover,  do 
-^  not  tend  to  reappear  in  offspring.  On  the  contrary 
/^^  they  tend  to  disappear.  A  whole  race  of  men  have 
practiced  the  rite  of  circumcision  for  nearly  four 
thousand  years,  and  at  the  same  time  have  refrained 
from  outside  marriages;  yet  never  was  a  child  born 
already  circumcised. 

If,  however,  the  perpetuation  of  such  abnormali- 
ties were  indeed  the  law  of  nature,  then  there  would 


EVOLUTION  AT  THE  BAR  43 

be  no  recognizable  species.  All  individuals  would  be 
undergoing  changes,  both  internal  and  external.  In 
such  case  we  should  see  humps,  protuberances  and  the 
like,  on  various  parts  of  different  creatures,  in  various 
stages  of  progress  towards  whatever  chance,  or  **  res- 
ident forces,"  might  ultimately  determine — legs, 
arms,  wings,  horns,  tails,  trunks,  tusks,  or  some  other 
and  novel  sort  of  organs  or  members,  of  the  nature 
whereof  we  could  form  no  idea  in  advance  of  their 
complete  development.  That  is  what  we  would  see  if 
Evolution  were  true.  If  then  we  see  nothing  of  the 
sort,  it  is  because  Evolution  is  a  delusion. 

It  is  appropriate  also  to  ask,  when,  under  the  sup- 
posed process  of  Evolution,  would  a  developing  organ 
or  m^ember  reach  completion?  How  would  the  ** res- 
ident forces"  know  when  to  stop  its  progress?  Could 
it  ever  be  said,  in  any  case,  that  an  organ  was  finished? 
Would  not  progressive  changes  be  always  taking  place 
in  every  part  of  every  organism?  Certainly,  if  the 
world  of  living  creatures  were  indeed  left  to  the  blind 
control  of  unintelligent  ''resident  forces,"  it  would  be 
a  world  of  more  vagaries,  monstrosities  and  abnormal- 
ities, than  was  ever  pictured  by  a  delirious  brain,  or 
by  the  disordered  imagination  of  an  opium  eater. 

The  Water  Let  us  now  consider  the  case  of  the 
Spider  water  spider,  and  ask  ourselves  if  there 

be  any  conceivable  way  in  which  its 
peculiar  organs,  instincts,  and  manner  of  life,  could 
have  been  derived,  by  Evolution,  from  others  of  the 
spider  family. 

Like  other  spiders  the  water  spider  is  an  air- 
breathing  animal,  yet,  unlike  other  spiders,  it  lives 
under  water.  How  did  it  evolve  the  extraordinary 
changes  in  its  organism,  and  in  its  habits  of  life, 
whereby  it  acquired  first,  its  set  purpose  to  live  under 
water;  and  second,  its  special  organs  and  instincts 
whereby  it  is  enabled  to  give  effect  to  that  strange 


44  EVOLUTION   AT    THE    BAR 

purpose,  and  to  live,  thrive,  and  rear  its  young  in  such 
an  unnatural  environment? 

Of  course,  if  the  water  spider  was  alwaijs  a  water 
spider,  and  was,  by  its  Creator,  endowed  with  just 
the  organs  and  instincts  that  are  suited  to  the  manner 
of  life  appointed  to  it,  the  matter  is  very  simple  and 
intelligible.  But  we  are  inquiring  how  the  water 
spider  and  its  ways  could  have  come  about  through 
Evolution.  Surely  those  who  press  that  theory  upon 
their  fellow-mortals,  and  who  ask  them  to  cast  aside 
the  belief  in  Creation  and  the  Creator — ^with  all  that 
that  involves — should  at  least  be  required  to  tell  us 
how  Evolution  worked,  or  co^dd  have  worked  in  such 
a  case.  Was  ever  such  a  thing  heard  of,  as  that  we 
should  be  asked  to  believe,  on  the  ground  of  ''reason" 
and  ''Science/'  in  a  thing  so  preposterously  un- 
reasonable  that  the  imagination  can  conceive  of  no 
possible  way  in  which  it  could  be  accomplished? 

Upon  examining  the  water  spider,  and  acquainting 
ourselves  with  its  ways,  we  find  that  its  body  is  cov- 
ered with  hairs  in  such  a  way  that  it  does  not  become 
wet  when  in  contact  with  water.  In  order  to  live  un- 
der water,  and  rear  its  young  there,  it  must  construct 
a  water-proof  cell,  capable  of  containing  enough  air 
for  breathing  purposes;  it  must  have  means  for  re- 
newing the  supply  of  air  from  time  to  time;  and  it 
must  have  the  instincts  to  guide  it  in  the  performance 
of  these  necessary  operations.  And  we  may  confident- 
ly add  that  the  very  first  water  spider  must  have  been 
fully  equipped  for  the  purposes  indicated.  It  spins 
under  the  water  an  egg-shaped  envelope,  open  under- 
neath for  entrance  and  egress.  This  envelope,  which 
is  water-proof,  is  securely  attached  to  some  object  so 
that  it  will  remain  submerged.  Having  constructed 
its  house,  the  little  creature  next  proceeds  to  fill  it 
with  air.  For  this  necessary  operation  its  hind  legs 
are  covered  with  hair  and  are  so  constructed  that  they 
can  take  hold  of  a  large  bubble  of  air,  and  carry  it 


EVOLUTION  AT  THE  BAR  45 

down  into  the  water,  and  to  the  opening  of  its  house. 
There  the  air  is  released,  and  it  rises  to  the  top  of  the 
envelope,  expelling  the  corresponding  quantity  of 
water.  This  operation  is  repeated  until  the  cell  is 
sufficiently  filled  with  air.  The  eggs  are  then  laid  in 
the  upper  part  of  this  house  and  are  surrounded  by  a 
cocoon. 

It  is  manifest  that  this  extraordinary  manner  ot 
life,  and  the  highly  specialized  organs,  which  are  vital 
to  it,  could  not  possibly  be  the  outcome  of  a  long  and 
slow  process  of  development.  Before  the  life  of  a 
water  spider  could  even  begin,  it  must  le  equipped 
with,  iirsty  the  means  for  secreting  a  water-proof 
material;  second,  means  for  spinning  that  material 
into  a  water-tight  cell ;  Mrd,  protective  hairs  to  keep 
it  from  becoming  wet ;  fourth,  the  peculiar  apparatus 
for  filling  its  house  with  air ;  fifth,  the  several  instincts 
which  prompt  the  doing  of  these  remarkable  things. 

That  there  is  no  trace  of  the  evolution  of  the  water 
spider  (or  of  any  other  creature)  is  reason  enough 
why  the  theory  should  be  rejected.  But  we  confi- 
dently submit  that  the  facts  briefly  set  forth  above, 
and  the  conclusions  which  necessarily  follow  from 
them,  constitute  proof  positive  that  Evolution  is  not 
only  an  impossibility,  but  an  absurdity. 

Spiders  in  The  subject  of  the  origin  of  instincts 
General  will  be  further  considered  under  our 
next  heading.  But  while  we  have  be- 
fore us  the  subject  of  spiders,  the  following  from 
Orton's  Zoology  will  be  of  interest: 

'*  Spiders  are  provided  at  the  posterior  end 
with  two  or  three  pairs  of  appendages  called 
spinnerets,  which  are  homologous  with  legs.  The 
office  of  the  spinnerets  is  to  reel  out  the  silk  from 
the  silk-glands,  the  tip  being  perforated  by^  a 
myriad  of  little  tubes,  through  which  the  silk 
escapes  in  excessively  fine  threads.    An  ordinary 


46  EVOLUTION   AT    THE    BAR 

thread,  just  visible  to  the  naked  eye,  is  the  union 
of  a  thousand  or  more  of  these  delicate  streams  of 
silk.  These  primary  threads  are  drawn  out  and 
united  by  the  hind  legs." 

Here  we  find  a  marvellous  co-ordination  of  special 
organs :  (1)  the  silk-glands,  capable  of  secreting  a  fluid 
which  has  the  remarkable  property  of  hardening  upon 
exposure  to  the  air;  (2)  spinnerets,  having  each  more 
than  a  thousand  perforations  of  microscopic  size, 
without  which  the  silk-glands  would  be  worse  than 
useless;  (3)  hind  legs,  having  the  wonderful  func- 
tion of  forming  the  thousands  of  invisible  filaments 
into  a  thread,  without  which  function  both  glands  and 
spinnerets  would  be  a  serious  detriment  to  their  pos- 
sessor. It  is  simply  impossible  that  these  three  organs 
should  have  developed  gradually,  and  independently 
of  each  other,  to  the  stage  of  perfection,  in  advance  of 
which  stage  they  could  not  co-operate  in  the  slightest 
degree  to  the  one  end  for  which  they  all  exist. 

Let  it  be  noted  that,  if  the  spinnerets  had  but  one 
aperture,  or  a  dozen,  or  even  a  hundred,  the  liquid 
material  would  not  have  the  required  area  of  expo- 
sure to  the  air  to  effect  that  instant  solidification  which 
is  absolutely  essential  to  the  success  of  the  entire  op- 
eration. It  required  at  least  a  thousand  apertures  to 
produce  the  desired  result.  Who  knew,  or  could  have 
known,  the  need  of  such  a  number  of  orifices  ?  or  could 
have  formed  them  in  a  tube  the  size  of  a  spider's  leg? 
And  in  what  imaginable  way  could  several  legs,  in- 
tended for  locomotion,  be  evolved  into  organs  so  rad- 
ically different  in  function  ?  It  is  not  too  much  to  say 
that  those  thousands  of  orifices  are  just  so  many  wit- 
nesses that  Evolution  is  a  huge  delusion,  which  has 
made  foolish  the  wisdom  of  the  wise,  and  has  exposed 
to  deserved  ridicule  the  gullibility  of  the  brightest 
minds. 


EVOLUTION   AT   THE  BAR  47 

Organs  and  The  difficulty  of  tracing  a  line  of  de- 
Instincts:  velopment  along  which  any  known 
The  Bee-Hive  organism  could  have  come  into  being, 
or  any  of  its  special  members  or  parts 
could  have  originated,  is  immensely  increased  when  we 
take  into  consideration  a  highly  specialized  creature, 
such  as  the  honey-bee,  which  is  also  endowed  with 
unique  instincts  requiring  for  their  exercise  a  cor- 
responding unique  structural  organization.  In  such 
case  the  theory  has  to  account,  not  only  for  the  evo- 
lution of  an  exceedingly  complicated  mechanism,  but 
also  for  the  simultaneous  development  of  equally  com- 
plicated instincts,  dependent  upon  that  very  mechan- 
ism, and  impossible  of  being  obeyed  without  it.  And 
it  has  further  to  account  for  the  preservation  of  both 
mechanism  and  instincts  through  the  long  era  of  in- 
utility. And — to  add  one  impossibility  to  another-— 
we  have  here  a  case  in  which,  not  the  life  of  the  indi- 
vidual only  but  that  of  the  entire  community  depends 
upon  the  exercise  of  those  instincts  and  the  function- 
ing of  that  mechanism.  Where  and  what  were  the 
honey-hees  during  the  centuries  of  time  which  Natural 
Selection  woidd  require  for  the  evolution  of  those  in- 
stincts and  their  necessary  mechanism?  Evolution  at- 
tempts not  to  give  an  answer. 

But  the  difficulties  in  this  case  have  not  yet  been 
fully  stated;  for  in  the  swarm  of  bees  we  find  three 
distinct  classes — queens,  workers  and  drones.  Each 
of  these  classes  is  absolutely  necessary  to  the  life  of 
the  swarm,  and  each  has  structural  peculiarities  and 
instincts  radically  different  from  the  other  two.  The 
workers,  which  are  undeveloped  females,  constitute 
the  largest  and  most  important  class.  Their  organic 
structure  is  highly  specialized  to  fit  them  for  the  many 
and  various  operations  they  have  to  perform;  and 
their  instincts  are  correspondingly  complex.  ^  How 
and  from  what  could  such  a  marvellously  specialized 
creature  have  been  evolved?     The  evolutionist  can 


48  EVOLUTION    AT    THE    BAR 

give  no  answer  that  is  worthy  of  a  moment's  notice. 
But  the  wonder  of  this  largest  and  most  important 
class  of  the  bee-community  is  that,  both  in  organi- 
zation and  in  instinct,  they  are  diverse  from  loth  their 
parents;  for  they  are  the  offspring  of  queens  and 
drones.  It  is  vital  to  the  theory  of  Evolution  that 
the  characteristics  of  parents  should  pass  to  their  off- 
spring. But  here  is  a  highly  organized  creature  which 
has  an  organic  structure  and  a  complex  set  of  in- 
stincts possessed  hy  neither  of  its  parents!  Whence 
then  comes  the  honey-bee?  It  does  not  transmit  its 
wonderful  characters  to  its  offspring,  for  it  has  none. 
And  if  a  worker-bee  should  lay  an  egg  (as  occasion- 
ally happens)  the  offspring  is  invariably  a  drone. 
Clearly  then,  the  worker  bees  are  not  the  product  of 
Evolution ;  and  their  existence  and  renewal  from  gen- 
eration to  generation,  from  parents  unlike  themselves, 
is  a  standing  contradiction  to  Evolution. 

The  Prof.   Fairhurst,  in  his  able  work  already 

Beaver    quoted,     {Organic    Evolution    Considered) 
calls  attention  to  the  remarkable  example  of 
instinct  manifested  by  the  beaver.    "We  quote : 

**It  lives  in  communities  and  constructs  dams, 
sometimes  as  long  as  three  hundred  yards,  stretch- 
ing across  shallow  streams  of  water.  These  dams 
are  built  of  sticks  of  wood,  generally  about  three 
feet  long  and  six  or  seven  inches  in  diameter, 
which  the  animal  cuts  with  its  teeth.  The  sticks 
are  put  in  the  water  and  are  held  in  position  by 
means  of  mud,  stones  and  moss,  which  are  placed 
upon  them.  The  dams  are  ten  or  twelve  feet 
thick  at  the  base;  and  when  the  streams  are  wide 
the  dams  are  made  to  curve  upstream  against  the 
current,  thus  producing  a  structure  better  able 
to  resist  the  force  of  the  stream.  The  amount  of 
labor  necessary  to  construct  a  large  dam  is  enor- 
mous.   Moreover,  it  requires  an  incredible  num- 


EVOLUTION  AT  THE  BAR  49 

ber  of  logs  of  wood,  and  great  skill  in  engineering. 

''Near  the  dams  the  beavers  build  their  houses. 
Each  house  is  about  seven  feet  in  diameter  in  the 
interior,  and  three  feet  high  in  the  center.  The 
walls  are  of  great  thickness.  Each  lodge  is  large 
enough  to  accommodate  five  or  six  beavers. 

''The  outside  is  plastered  with  mud  and  care- 
fully smoothed;  and  the  mud  is  renewed  each 
year  in  order  to  keep  the  house  in  good  repair. 
All  the  houses  of  the  colony  are  surrounded  by  a 
ditch  which  contains  water;  and  each  lodge  is 
connected  by  a  passage-way  with  the  ditch. 

"As  a  supply  of  food  for  the  winter,  the  beav- 
ers store  up  a  large  number  of  logs  under  the 
water,  the  bark  of  which  they  consume. 

"Thus  we  find  in  this  case  an  organized  com- 
munity, working  for  the  common  good,  both  in 
constructing  the  dam  and  the  ditch,  and  also  in 
storing  up  food ;  and  then  making  special  prepa- 
ration for  living  in  small  groups  by  constructing 
their  lodges  and  connecting  them  with  the  ditch. 

"Here  we  see  highly  developed  instincts  which 
look  to  the  future  good  of  the  organism.  The 
building  of  the  dam,  the  digging  of  the  ditch, 
the  storing  of  the  food,  are  all  done  to  meet  future 
emergencies.  It  is  evident  that  the  construction 
of  the  dam  could  not  have  been  evolved  gradually, 
for  a  dam  must  he  of  sufficient  extent  to  he  use- 
ful ere  Natural  Selection  could  act. 

"Are  we  to  presume  that  beavers  experimented 
for  countless  generations,  thereby  building  up  the 
instinct  which  leads  them  to  construct  the  dam? 
If  so,  upon  what  ground  can  we  explain  the  pres- 
ervation of  the  incipient  instinct  until  sufficiently 
developed  to  be  of  practical  use?  In  what  way 
could  they  have  known  in  advance  that  a  dam 
would  serve  their  good?  Shall  we  assume  that 
their  instinct  led  them,  in  the  first  instance,  to 


50  EVOLUTION   AT    THE    BAR 

construct  a  dam,  they  not  having  had  any  expe- 
rience whereby  an  instinct  of  that  kind  could  be 
evolved?  If  the  instinct  existed  without  having 
been  developed  hy  experience,  then  we  cannot  ac- 
count for  it  by  Evolution" — And  we  may  inter- 
rupt our  quotation  to  say  that  the  instinct  must 
have  existed  in  advance  of  the  building  of  the  first 
dam,  else  obviously  it  would  never  have  been 
built.  * '  If  evolved,  then  we  must  assume  that  the 
first  dam  made  was  of  sufficient  use  to  give  its 
makers  an  advantage  in  the  struggle  for  existence, 
and  that  the  instinct  which  led  to  its  construction 
was  transmitted  to  their  offspring. 

*' Manifestly  then,  in  accounting  for  the  evolu- 
tion of  this  instinct,  we  of  necessity  hegin  with 
an  instinct  that  is  already  useful;  and  thus  we  as- 
sume the  existence  of  that  for  which  we  are  try- 
ing to  account.  "We  are  obliged  to  assume  that,  in 
a  single  generation,  a  beaver  or  colony  of  beavers 
was  produced,  which  had  a  new  instinct,  suf- 
ficiently developed  to  enable  them  to  build  a  use- 
ful dam;  and  that,  in  consequence  of  this,  they 
themselves  were  the  better  preserved;  and  that 
the  instinct  was  transmitted  to  the  offspring.  If 
all  this  could  have  happened  in  a  single  genera- 
tion, it  is  evident  that  no  question  need  be  raised 
as  to  the  possibility  of  future  evolution. 

**  Besides  this,  the  construction  of  a  ditch  for 
water  around  the  several  lodges  required  a  dif- 
ferent instinct,  serving  another  purpose.  Its 
evolution  involves  similar  difficulties." 

The  examples  considered  above  are  not  exceptional ; 
for  we  could  never  exhaust  the  strange  instincts  of 
insects  alone,  of  the  origin  of  which  it  is  impossible 
to  account  upon  the  theory  of  Evolution. 

The  question  of  the  development  of  instincts,  along 
-"^th  that  of  special  organs,  required  for  those  pecu- 


EVOLUTION   AT   THE  BAR  51 

liar  instincts,  and  in  their  turn  utterly  useless  with- 
out the  latter,  is  a  question  which  the  evolutionist  is 
unable  to  face.  Mr.  Darwin  himself  says  there  exist 
''cases  of  instincts  almost  identically  the  same  in  an- 
imals so  remote  in  the  scale  of  nature,  that  we  cannot 
account  for  their  similarity  by  inheritance  from  a 
common  progenitor,  and  consequently  must  believe 
that  they  were  independently  acquired  through  Nat- 
ural Selection"  {Origin  of  Species,  p.  226). 

But  Mr.  Darwin  himself  realized  that,  to  believe  a 
thing  so  utterly  unreasonable,  and  so  contrary  to  all 
known  facts  and  experience,  would  require  credulity 
of  a  most  uncommon  sort;  for  he  said:  "Many  in- 
stincts are  so  wonderful  that  their  development  will 
prdhahly  appear  to  the  reader  a  difficulty  sufficient  to 
overcome  my  whole  theory/^ 

True  enough.  For  in  this  we  can  thoroughly  agree 
with  Mr.  Darwin.  But  inasmuch  as  Mr.  Darwin  was 
evidently  himself  aware  of  the  incredibility  of  his 
theory,  we  wonder  how  he  could  expect  others  to  ac- 
cept it.  What  the  whole  extraordinary  situation  dem- 
onstrates most  conclusively  is,  that  there  is  no  mind 
so  capable  of  believing  the  incredible,  as  that  which  is 
pleased  to  call  itself  "the  scientific  mind,"  and  that 
there  i?  no  person  in  the  world  so  irrational  as  the 
"rationalist." 


CHAPTER  V 

The  Origin     Of  all  the  questions  of  origin  that  of 
of  Man  Man  is  supremely  important,  and  if,  as 

we  doubt  not  is  the  case,  the  doctrine  of 
Evolution  was  inspired  by  the  great  *' Spirit  of  Er- 
ror," as  a  special  effort  in  these  last  days  to  ''blind 
the  minds  of  them  that  believe  not, ' '  then  we  may  well 
conclude  that  his  main  object  would  be  to  discredit 
statements  of  Scripture  which  relate  to  the  creation  of 
Man.  The  words,  "Let  Us  make  man,  in  Our  image, 
after  Our  likeness"  (Gen.  1:26),  reveal  a  truth  of 
fundamental  importance.  Against  this  foundation 
truth  of  Scripture  (which  is  closely  linked  to  that  of 
Redemption  by  Him  Who  came  in  the  likeness  of 
Man)  Evolution  raises  the  monstrous  and  impious  fic- 
tion that  Man  was  made  in  the  image  and  likeness  of 
the  ape,  by  means  of  an  unbroken  continuity  of 
changes  imperceptibly  small. 

If  the  explanation  of  the  origin  of  Instincts  pre- 
sented difficulties  which  Evolution  finds  insurmount- 
able, what  shall  we  say  of  those  powers  and  endow- 
ments of  mind  and  spirit  which  distinguish  human 
heings,  and  which  mark  the  existence  of  a  mighty 
chasm,  deep  and  wide,  between  the  highest  of  the 
brutes  and  the  lowest  of  the  human  race!  For  it  is 
not  in  his  physical  being,  his  body,  that  the  special 
characteristics  of  man  are  to  be  found.  Physically  he 
is  far  inferior  in  strength  and  activity  to  many  brutes. 
His  bodily  resemblance  to  the  largest  of  the  apes  is 
seen  at  a  glance;  but  that  resemblance  is  superficial, 
and  is  easily  accounted  for,  consistently  with  the 
truth  of  Creation.  For,  since  Man  has  a  physical 
being,  and  requires  organs  for  locomotion,  sight,  hear- 
ing, manipulation,  etc.,  in  common  with  other  ani- 


EVOLUTION   AT   THE  BAR  53 

mals,  his  physical  makeup  would,  of  course,  resemble 
theirs  in  respect  to  those  organs,  with  only  such  modi- 
fications as  would  be  required  by  the  differences  in 
his  physical  manner  of  life. 

TheCharac-  The  differences — immeasurably  great 
teristics  of  — between  the  brute  and  the  man  lie 
Man  beneath   the  surface,  and  have  their 

existence  in  the  regions  of  the  soul 
and  spirit,  regions  which,  though  so  manifestly  real, 
are  yet  so  mysterious  that  even  Man  himself  has  no 
means  to  explore  them,  nor  words  to  describe  the  sim- 
plest of  their  mysteries.  In  Man  we  find  a  creature 
who  is  self-conscious,  who  can  reflect,  reason,  con- 
template; who  has  the  power  of  abstraction;  who 
can  comprehend  general  ideas;  who  can  arrange  his 
thoughts;  who  can  communicate  them  to  others  by 
oral  and  written  language ;  who  has  a  sense  of  beauty ; 
ability  to  enjoy  harmonies  of  sound  or  color;  a  per- 
ception of  right  and  wrong;  a  conscience;  and  above 
all,  who  has  a  capacity  to  know  God.  How  vast  are 
these  differences!  Who  can  declare  their  breadth 
and  depth?  Who  would,  unless  infatuated  by  some 
mysterious  delusion,  or  possessed  by  the  spirit  of 
mischievous  error,  compare  with  the  chattering  ape 
a  being  of  whom  even  Charles  Darwin  says  that  he 
can  ''follow  out  a  train  of  metaphysical  reasoning,  or 
solve  a  mathematical  problem,  or  reflect  on  God,  or 
admire  a  grand  natural  scene ' '  ? 

"Missing  The  very  lowest  type  of  human  being  has 
Links"  all  these  marvellous  capabilities  in  com- 
mon with  the  highest.  Between  the  two 
extremes  there  are  infinite  gradations,  merging  one 
into  the  other,  in  such  a  way  that  not  a  line  the  thick- 
ness of  hair  could  be  drawn  at  any  part  of  the  scale. 
But,  when  we  reach  the  lowest  limit  in  that  scale,  and 
look  from  that  point  to  the  very  highest  of  the  brute 


54  EVOLUTION    AT    THE    BAR 

creation,  it  is  not  across  a  mere  ' '  break  in  the  chain  of 
continuity"  that  we  are  looking,  but  across  an  im- 
measurable  chasm.     There  is  much  talk  about  ^'the 
missing  link."     But  such  talk  is  nonsensical.     More- 
over, it  obscures  the  facts  of  the  case ;  for  it  is  not  a 
mere  '4ink"  that  is  missing,  but  ten  thousand  times 
ten  thousand  links.    There  is  nothing  in  all  the  animalk 
creation  which  answers  to  the  mental,  moral  and  spir-| 
itual    nature    of   Man;    or   to   his   power    of   verbal    ^ 
expression  of  thought;  nothing  from  which  those  mar- 
vellous and  godlike  attributes  and  powers  could  con- 
ceivably be  derived  by  Evolution. 

The  low  moral  standing  of  savages  does  not  lend 
support  to  Mr.  Darwin's  theory,  though  he  appeals  to 
it;  for  the  lowest  of  them  possesses  a  capacity  for 
morals,  as  well  as  the  most  highly  cultivated  of  men. 
According  to  Natural  Selection,  says  Prof.  Fairhurst, 
**  Savages  ought  not  to  have  any  capacities  except 
those  that  have  been  constantly  in  use,  and  that  have 
been  preserved  because  they  have  proved  useful."  But 
savages  have,  in  common  with  all  men,  natural  pow- 
ers which  enable  them  to  appreciate  moral  distinc- 
tions, and  to  receive  instruction  in  regard  thereto, 
and  to  make  progress  in  education  in  all  directions. 

It  is  related  of  Mr.  Darwin  that  *'When  he  sailed 
past  certain  islands  in  the  Pacific,  he  found  them  in-  y 
habited  by  cannibals ;  but  twenty-five  years  there-  / 
after  be  found  those  very  islanders  converted  to  Chris- 
tianity and  enjoying  the  blessings  of  civilization. 
How  many  millions  of  years  would  it  take,"  can  any 
evolutionist  tell  us,  *'to  convert  a  tribe  of  gorillas  in- 
to God-fearing,  man-loving,  self-conscious  beings, 
capable  of  believing  that  they  possessed  immortal 
souls,"  and  that  they  were  the  objects  of  God's  re- 
deeming love  and  saving  grace?  (Fairhurst:  Organic 
Evolution  Considered.) 

What  these  facts  of  common  knowledge  prove  is 
that  all  men  are  akin  to  each  other;  that  all  are  in 


EVOLUTION  AT  THE  BAR  55 

common  '  endowed  with  attributes  God-like  in  char- 
acter, bestowed  from  above,  not  derived  from  beneath ; 
that  they  are  wholly  distinct  from  the  brute  creation ; 
that  by  sin  the  moral  nature  of  Man  has  been  ruined ; 
but  that  Man,  in  his  most  degraded  condition,  is  capa- 
ble of  being  regenerated  and  renewed  under  the 
potent  influence  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ.  Thus,  the  per- 
tinent facts  of  common  knowledge,  which  are  univer- 
sal and  the  same  in  all  the  centuries  of  our  era,  are  in 
perfect  agreement  with  the  statements  of  Scripture 
concerning  the  Creation,  the  fall,  and  the  recovery  of 
Man  through  Divine  intervention,  and  are  utterly  op- 
posed to  Evolution. 

Ancient  Hu-  We  would  deem  it  a  waste  of  time  to 
man  Remains  discuss  in  detail  the  human  bones, 
found  in  various  localities,  and  which 
have  been  put  forward  by  the  evolutionist— hard 
pressed  for  proof— as  being  the  remains  of  a  type  of 
Man  somewhat  nearer  to  the  ape  physically,  than  any 
now  living.  It  suffices  to  say  that  the  actual  charac- 
ter of  such  fragmentary  remains  is,  in  all  cases,  more 
or  less  a  matter  of  speculation ;  and  that  not  a  single 
human  skull  or  other  bone  has  ever  been  discovered 
that  differs  in  any  marked  degree  from  corresponding 
parts  of  human  beings  now  living.  Furthermore,  we 
have  shown  that  the  real  problem  of  the  evolutionist 
is,  not  to  account  for  Man's  physical  being  by  Evolu- 
tion (impossible  as  that  is)  but  to  account  for  the  or- 
igin of  his  mental,  moral  and  spiritual  attributes 
which  are  his  real  distinguishing  characteristics.  As 
to  those,  the  facts  all  bear  witness  that  Evolution  is 
a  monstrous  delusion — doubtless  a  phase  of  that 
''strong  deluson,"  to  which,  according  to  the  prophet- 
ic Scriptures,  they  of  the  last  days  were  to  be  given 
over,  who  "received  not  the  love  of  the  truth  that 
they  might  be  saved"  (2  Thess.  2 :10-12).    It  will  suf- 


56  EVOLUTION    AT    THE    BAR 

fice,  on  this  branch  of  our  subject,  to  quote  a  few  pas- 
sages from  recognized  authorities. 

The  great  Virchow,  one  of  the  very  greatest  of 
chemists,  an  investigator  and  anatomist  of  the  first 
rank,  says: 

*'We  must  really  acknowledge  that  there  is  a 
complete  absence  of  any  fossil  type  of  a  lower 
stage  in  the  development  of  Man.  Nay,  if  we 
gather  together  all  the  fossil  men  hitherto  found, 
and  put  them  parallel  with  those  of  the  present 
time,  we  can  decidedly  pronounce  that  there  are 
among  living  men  a  much  greater  proportion  of 
>  individuals  who  show  a  relatively  inferior  type, 
than  there  are  among  the  fossils  Imown  up  to  this 
time." 

Honest  evolutionists  will  not  dispute  this.  Thus, 
the  ''Engis  skull,"  found  in  Belgium,  and  gleefully 
hailed  as  that  of  the  much  sought  "missing  link,"  was 
conceded  by  Prof.  Huxley  to  be  ' '  a  fair  average  skull, 
which  might  have  belonged  to  a  philosopher,  or  might 
have  contained  the  thoughtless  brain  of  a  savage." 
This  Engis  skull  is  supposed  to  be  the  oldest  known  up 
to  now. 

Again  quoting  Prof.  Virchow : 

*'We  seek  in  vain  for  the  missing  link.  There 
exists  a  definite  barrier  separating  man  from  the 
animal,  a  barrier  which  has  not  yet  been  effaced — 
heredity,  which  transmits  to  children  the  facul- 
ties of  the  parents. 

* '  It  was  generally  believed  a  few  years  ago  that 
there  existed  a  few  human  races  which  still  re- 
mained in  the  (supposed)  primitive  inferior  con- 
dition of  their  organization.  But  all  these  races 
have  been  the  objects  of  minute  investigation,  and 
we  know  that  they  have  an  organization  like  ours, 
often  indeed  superior  to  that  of  the  supposed  high- 
er races.    Thus,  the  Eskimo  head,  and  the  head  of 


EVOLUTION   AT   THE  BAR  57 

the  Terra  del  Fuegians,  belong  to  the  perfected 
types.  All  the  researches  undertaken  with  the  aim 
of  finding  continuity  in  progressive  development 
have  been  without  result.  There  exists  no  man- 
monkey  and  the  'connecting  link'  remains  a  phan- 
tom." 

The  above  quotations  are  as  given  in  Th.  Graebner's 
work  ' '  Evolution :  An  Investigation  and  a  Criticism, ' ' 
from  which  we  also  quote  the  following : 

**No  one  has  stated  ascertained  facts  touching 
the  origin  of  Man  more  succinctly  and  more  clear- 
ly than  Prof.  Dr.  Friedrich  Pfaff,  professor  of 
natural  science  in  the  University  of  Erlangen. 
He  shows  conclusively  that  the  age  of  man  is 
comparatively  brief,  extending  only  to  a  few 
thousand  years;  that  man  appeared  suddenly; 
that  the  most  ancient  man  known  to  us  is  not  es- 
/  sentially  different  from  the  now  living  man,  and 
that  transitions  from  ape  to  man,  or  from  man  to 
ape  are  nowhere  to  be  found.  The  conclusion  he 
reaches  is  that  the  Scriptural  account  of  Man, 
which  is  one  and  self-consistent  throughout,  is 
true ;  that  God  made  Man  in  His  own  image,  fitted 
for  fellowship  with  Himself,  a  state  from  which 
Man  indeed  has  fallen,  hut  to  which  restoration  is 
possible  through  Him  Who  is  the  brightness  of 
His  Father's  glory,  and  the  express  image  of  His 
Person.' ' 


CHAPTER  VI 

Theistic  A  'Hheist"  is  one  who  believes  in  a  God, 
Evolution  ''theism"  being  simply  the  opposite  of 
''atheism."  A  Mohammedan  is  a  theist. 
Hence  "Theistic  Evolution"  signifies  the  acceptance 
of  the  theory  in  a  form  which  does  not  deny  the  exis- 
tence of  God.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  term  "Theistic 
Evolution"  is  little  more  than  a  name.^  Those  who 
have  brought  forward  and  have  popularized  the  doc- 
trine of  Evolution  are  not  in  the  least  concerned  about 
"Theism."  Their  aim  has  ever  been  to  abolish  God 
altogether,  or  at  least  (since  a  "First  Cause"  is  essen- 
tial to  the  theory)  to  deprive  Him  of  all  personality 
and  attributes,  and  to  banish  Him  to  the  remotest  con- 
fines of  time  and  space. 

Much  less  are  evolutionists  concerned  about  Chris- 
tianity, except  to  antagonize  its  vital  truths.  Evolu- 
tion was  put  forth  as  an  anti-christian  and  infidel  doc- 
trine ;  and  for  fifty  years  it  has  supplied  the  platform 
from  which,  and  the  weapons  with  which,  Christian- 
ity has  been  assailed.  Haeckel,  the  infidel  naturalist, 
termed  Darwin's  Origin  of^  Species  the  "Anti-Gene- 
sis," and  exultingly  proclaimed  that  "With  a  single 
stroke  Darwin  has  annihilated  the  dogma  of  crea- 
tion." This  antagonism  between  Evolution  and 
Christianity  is  a  fact  which,  we  suppose,  no  sincere 
evolutionist  would  deny. 

Nevertheless,  there  has  arisen  in  recent  years  a 
large  class  of  theologians  who,  while  choosing  to  call 
themselves  "Christians,"  nevertheless  accept  and 
advocate  the  doctrine  of  Evolution.  These  have  at- 
tempted to  effect  a  compromise  between  the  two  irrec- 
oncilable systems,  and  to  that  compromise  they  have 
been  pleased  to  give  the  name  "Theistic  Evolution." 


EVOLUTION  AT  THE  BAR  59 

They  would  hold  to  Evolution  as  a  general  cosmic 
process,  but  would  put  it  under  the  control  and  su- 
pervision of  God,  and  would  allow  of  Divine  interven- 
tion by  direct  action  at  those  stages  which  evolution- 
ists find  it  particularly  hard  to  get  over.  They  would 
allow  just  so  much  '* Theism"  as  seems  necessary  to 
help  Evolution  over  the  hard  places.  But  inasmuch 
as  this  compromise  permits  enough  Divine  action  in 
the  affairs  of  the  universe  to  destroy  the  theory  of 
Evolution,  as  set  forth  by  the  responsible  exponents 
thereof,  we  may  dismiss  ''Theistic  Evolution"  as  a 
mere  verbal  expression  to  which  there  is,  and  can  be, 
no  corresponding  reality.  True  evolutionists  would 
not  recognize  such  a  self-contradiction  as  ''Theistic 
Evolution. ' ' 

In  this  connection  we  quote  further  from  Prof. 
Fairhurst : 

"The  first  great  evolutionists,  beginning  with 
Darwin,  and  including  Huxley,  Spencer,  Tyndall 
and  others,  based  the  theory  of  evolution  on  mat- 
ter, motion,  and  force.  It  was  purely  a  system  of 
naturalism,  that  did  not  recognize  God,  nor  the 
Bible,  nor  what  the  Christian  regards  specially  as 
the  supernatural. ' ' 

' '  No  cosmic  evolutionist  can  accept  a  miracle  at 
any  point  of  the  natural  process.  To  him  a  mira- 
cle as  a  part  of  Evolution  would  be  unthinkable. ' ' 

Thomas  Huxley  speaks  quite  as  plainly  as  Haeckel, 
saying:  ''Not  only  do  I  hold  it  to  be  proven  that  the 
story  of  the  Deluge  is  a  pure  fiction;  but  I  have  no 
hesitation  in  affirming  the  same  thing  of  the  story  of 
the  Creation." 

According  to  Herbert  Spencer  nothing  is  known  of 
God  except  that  He  is  "unknowable."  If  this  is  not 
practically  the  same  as  denying  the  existence  of  God, 
it  would  not  be  easy  to  say  wherein  the  difference  lies. 
If  there  be  a  Supreme  Being,  and  He  is  "unknow- 


60  EVOLUTION    AT    THE    BAR 

able,"  then  it  must  be  either  because  He  has  not  the 
power  to  make  Himself  known,  or  because  He  has  not 
given  to  the  highest  of  His  creatures  the  capacity  to 
know  Him.  The  first  supposition  is  disposed  of  by 
the  consideration  that,  if  God  did  not  have  the  power 
to  reveal  Himself  and  to  create  beings  capable  of 
knowing  Him,  He  would  not  he  God.  And  the  alter- 
native is  disposed  of  by  the  fact  that  Man  actually 
possesses  the  faculty  of  reflecting  upon  God,  that  he 
has  a  consciousness  of  God,  and  that  he  has  the  ability 
to  understand  communications  from  others  equal  or 
superior  to  himself  in  the  scale  of  being. 

Mr.  Spencer  dogmatically  asserts  that  "the  deepest, 
widest,  and  most  certain  of  all  facts"  is  this,  name- 
ly, ''that  the  Power  which  the  Universe  manifests  to 
us  is  utterly  inscrutable"  (First  Principles,  p.  46). 
This  is,  for  all  practical  purposes,  pure  atheism.  It 
asserts  that  there  is  no  revelation  from  God,  and  can 
he  none.  It  is,  however,  an  assertion  of  the  most  reck- 
less sort,  which  has  absolutely  nothing  to  back  it  up 
except  Mr.  Spencer's  spiritual  blindness  and  dead- 
ness.  It  has  no  more  weight  or  authority  than  would 
attach  to  the  assertion  of  a  blind  man  that  the  deep- 
est, widest,  and  most  certain  of  all  facts  is  that  total 
darkness  is  the  universal  and  perpetual  state  of  na- 
ture. That  a  man  may  be  in  complete  ignorance  of 
God  is  evident  enough ;  but  that  one  should  make  his 
own  ignorance  the  ground  of  denying  the  possibility 
of  knowing  God  is  simply  to  add  colossal  presumptioi 
to  total  ignorance. 

It  requires  no  great  penetration  to  see  that  the  real 
object  of  attack  by  the  supporters  of  Evolution  is  the 
Bible,  with  its  revelation  of  Christ  as  the  Eedeemer 
and  Saviour  of  men.  It  matters  little  or  nothing  wheth- 
er a  perishing  child  of  Adam  believes  in  the  ex- 
istence of  God  or  not,  so  long  as  he  is  blinded  to  the 
one  thing  which  most  concerns  him  to  know,  and 
that  is  the  salvation  of  God,  which  the  Bible  reveals, 


EVOLUTION  AT   THE  BAR  61 

and  which  is  received  by  all  who  believe  'Hhe  testi- 
mony that  God  gave  of  His  Son." 

That  Evolution  serves  most  effectually  to  blind 
the  minds  of  all  who  accept  it  to  the  facts  of  sin  and 
Redemption  is  undeniable.  Therefore  the  pretence, 
masked  by  the  term  "Theistic  Evolution,"  that  the 
doctrine  can  be  reconciled  with  the  truth  of  Christian- 
ity, is  merely  an  attempt  to  make  it  more  successful- 
ly destructive,  by  throwing  incautious  people  off 
their  guard.  There  is  not  a  single  deadly  heresy, 
among  all  that  were,  in  past  generations,  openly  op- 
posed to  the  faith  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  has  not  now 
succeeded,  by  one  means  or  another,  in  entering  into 
and  establishing  itself  within  the  precincts  of  pro- 
fessing Christendom,  and  which  is  not,  in  our  day, 
openly  preached  and  taught  in  the  ''churches"  and 
theological  seminaries. 

When  the  main  features  of  the  present  state  of 
Christendom,  as  briefly  outlined  above,  are  under- 
stood, there  will  be,  as  Prof.  Graebner  has  well  said, 
''no  need  to  inquire  why,  on  the  one  hand,  enemies 
of  the  Bible  in  all  ranks  of  life  greeted  with  such 
joyous  acclaim  the  principle  announced  hy  Darwin, 
and  why,  on  the  other  hand,  a  chief  purpose  of 
Christian  apologetics  has  become  the  demonstration 
that  Christianity  is  justified  even  by  reason  in  that 
view  of  the  origin  of  the  world  which  it  inculcates, 
and  that,  on  the  other  hand,  the  evolutionary  hypoth- 
esis is  contradicted  ly  the  facts  of  religion,  of  his- 
tory, and  of  natural  science." 

The  spread  of  the  doctrine  of  Evolution  has  been 
phenomenal.  Therefore,  many  theologians  became 
alarmed,  "because  they  thought  that  'Science'  had 
succeeded  in  proving  that  all  things  were  produced 
by  Evolution.  They  began  to  consider  how  they 
could  reconcile  theology  and  'Science.'  They  im- 
agined that  evolution  was  an  estalished  science.  They 
said:  'We  will  change  the  lion  into  a  lamb  by  chang- 


62  EVOLUTION   AT   THE   BAR 

ing  its  name.'  And  so  they  called  it  'Theistic  Evolu- 
tion/ but  accepted  the  agnostic  or  atheistic  method, 
and  then  began  to  sleep  comfortably  over  their  wis- 
dom (?)"     (Fairhurst). 

It  is  indeed  a  fact  that  those  ''Christians"  who 
have  thus  surrendered  to  infidel  Evolution  have  done 
little  more  than  devise  a  name. 

Evolution  and  Between  Evolution  and  Christianity 
Christianity  there  is  and  can  be  nothing  but  the 
sharpest  antagonism.  Prof.  Fair- 
hurst well  says,  ''Christian  evolution  is  incon- 
ceivable. ' ' 

Christianity  is  based  upon  the  fact  that  the  Bible  is 
a  Divine  revelation.  But  the  Bible,  according  to  Evo- 
lution, is  itself  but  a  detail  of  the  cosmic  process. 
Here  is  an  issue  as  to  which  reconciliation  is  impos- 
sible. One  cannot  hold  Evolution,  and  also  hold  the 
Christian  view — ^which  is  Christ's  own  view — of  the 
Holy  Scriptures.  If  the  Bible  is  from  God,  if  every 
Scripture  is  God-breathed,  if  holy  men  of  old  spake 
as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  then  Evolu- 
tion is  false,  and  its  author  is  that  father  of  lies,  whose 
chief  aim  is  to  "deceive  the  nations"  and  to  "blind 
the  minds  of  them  that  believe  not." 

One  of  the  best  known  writers  of  our  day,  Mr.  H.  G. 
Wells — himself  a  thorough-going  evolutionist — has 
lately  declared  in  print  that  Civilization  owes  both 
its  origin  and  its  preservation  until  now,  to  the  Bible, 
saying:  "It  is  the  Book  that  has  held  together  the 
fabric  of  western  civilization";  it  has  "unified  and 
kept  together  great  masses  of  people";  and  in  fact 
"the  civilization  we  possess  could  not  have  come  in- 
to existence  and  could  not  have  heen  sustained  with- 
out it."  And  Mr.  Wells  drives  his  point  to  its  logi- 
cal conclusion  by  showing  that,  without  something  to 
take  effectively  the  place  of  the  Bible,  civilization  will 
speedily  be  overthrown. 


EVOLUTION  AT  THE  BAR  $3 

This  frank  admission  involves,  if  true,  the  com- 
plete negation  of  Evolution.  For,  according  to  that 
theory,  the  Bible  should  be  the  product  of  Civiliza- 
tion, and  man's  ever-advancing  Progress  should  be 
continually  producing,  by  slight  variations,  better 
and  better  Bibles.  But  here  is  an  evolutionist  who 
forgets  his  doctrine  long  enough  to  declare  that  the 
Bible  produced  Civilization,  and  not  Civilization  the 
Bible.  Here  then,  in  that  ancient  Book,  which  is  for- 
ever correcting  and  improving  man,  but  which  re- 
ceives no  correction  or  improvement  from  man,  we 
have  a  complete  disproof  of  Evolution.  What  we 
here  assert  is,  not  merely  that  the  statements  con- 
tained in  the  Bible  contradict  the  doctrine  of  Evolu- 
tion, but  that  the  very  existence  and  persistence  of 
the  Bible,  in  its  place  of  undisputed  supremacy  among 
books  (a  place  it  holds  despite  the  most  strenuous  ef- 
forts to  dislodge  it)  ;  the  hold  it  establishes  upon  the 
hearts  and  consciences  of  men;  the  stupendous  and 
morally  excellent  influence  it  has  exerted  upon  the 
lives  of  individuals  and  the  prosperity  of  communi- 
ties; constitutes  a  proof  of  the  most  convincing  sort 
that  Evolution  is  a  monstrous  falsehood.  If  Evolu- ' 
tion  were  true,  the  history  of  the  Bible,  with  its  place  * 
and  influence  among  men,  would  have  been  an  im- 
possibility. Hence  the  existence  of  the  Bible  is  a  dis- 
proof of  Evolution, 

The  Law  and  The  law  of  Moses,  with  the  peculiar 
the  Gospel  Not  economy  based  thereon,  and  the  pe- 
Evolved  culiar  people  associated  therewith — 

the  Israelites — ^were  not  the  product 
of  Evolution.  The  children  of  Israel  came  out  of 
Egypt  utterly  unorganized,  having  lived  there  for  cen- 
turies in  slavery,  dominated  by  an  idolatrous  and 
polytheistic  race.  At  the  time  of  their  departure 
from  Egypt  they  had  neither  laws,  government,  wor- 
ship nor  organization.    Yet  they  entered  Canaan  forty 


64  EVOLUTION   AT    THE    BAR 

years  later  with  a  law,  statutes  and  judgments,  and  a 
system  of  monotheistic  worship,  utterly  unlike  any- 
thing previously  existing  in  the  world.  The  miracles 
recorded  in  the  books  of  Moses  explain  what  other- 
wise would  be  inexplicable.  Judaism  is  a  complete 
refutation  of  the  theory  we  are  discussing. 

But  if  the  Jews,  and  their  laws,  institutions  and 
worship  cannot  be  accounted  for  by  Evolution,  still 
more  impossible  is  it  to  account  for  Christians  and 
Christianity  by  that  theory.  Christianity  was  not  the 
product  of  Evolution.  There  were  no  '  *  resident  forces ' ' 
in  the  world  leading  gradually  up  to  it;  no  progress 
towards  it;  but  just  the  reverse;  for  everything  was 
going  rapidly  in  the  opposite  direction.  Judaism  had 
departed  completely  from  the  spirit  and  teaching  of 
the  law  and  the  prophets.  Greek  advancement  in  lit- 
erature, philosophy  and  art  had  eventuated  in  a  puerile 
system  of  polytheism,  and  in  extreme  moral  degrada- 
tion; while  Roman  progress  in  the  art  of  government 
had  produced  atheism  and  unspeakable  corruption 
and  decay  in  morals.  Christianity  arose,  not  only 
utterly  different  in  every  feature  from  its  environ- 
ment, but  in  deadly  antagonism  to  the  tenets  of  Jews, 
Greeks,  and  Romans.  Christianity,  considered  mere- 
ly as  an  historic  fact,  in  connection  with  its  environ- 
ment, destroys  Evolution  down  to  the  ground.  There 
is  but  one  conceivable  explanation  of  Christianity,  and 
of  the  people  who  *'were  called  'Christians'  first  at 
Antioch,"  and  that  explanation  is  Christ;  the  Christ 
of  the  Gospels,  born  of  a  virgin ;  the  Word  made  flesh 
and  dwelling  among  men,  as  Immanuel,  God-with-us; 
Christ  crucified,  and  Christ  risen  from  the  dead; 
*' Christ  the  power  of  God,  and  the  Wisdom  of  God'' 
(1  Cor.  1:24). 

Evolution       To  say  that  Jesus  Christ  was  evolved, 
and  Christ      that  He  was  the  product  of  His  environ- 
ment, is  both  to  repudiate  Christianity, 
and  also  to  reject  the  plainest  facts  of  history. 


EVOLUTION  AT   THE  BAR  65 

Here  we  reach  the  climax  of  the  matter.  Christ  is 
"the  Truth";  and  the  conclusive  test  of  every  doc- 
trine and  every  system  is  to  bring  it  into  the  presence 
of  Christ.  When  subjected  to  that  test,  Evolution 
fades  into  nothini^ness  like  the  mists  in  the  presence 
of  the  sun.  The  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  from  the 
dead  was  not  an  evolution.  It  was  a  complete  reversal 
of  the  course  of  nature.  The  people  who  are  "quick- 
ened together  with  Christ"  are  not  an  evolution,  but  a 
"new  creation." 

Here  again  we  quote  a  striking  passage  from  Prof. 
Graebner. 

"We  cannot  leave  this  subject  without  briefly 
adverting  to  a  great  historic  fact,  indeed  the 
most  massive  and  significant  fact  in  all  history, 
which,  in  its  more  remote  bearings,  not  only 
strikes  at  the  very  root  of  evolutionistic  philoso- 
phy, but  at  the  same  time  wounds  it  mortally  in 
all  its  parts.  I  refer  to  the  Resurrection  of  our 
Lord. 

"The  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  is  the  cen- 
tral fact  of  our  Christian  faith;  and  it  is,  when 
rightly  understood,  the  all-sufficient  answer  to  the 
theory  of  Evolution. 

"Christ's  resurrection  is  an  historical  fact, 
fully  as  much  as  the  defeat  of  Xerxes  at  Salamis 
in  480  B.  C,  the  discovery  of  America  by  Colum- 
bus in  1492,  and  the  peace  of  Versailles  of  1919 
are  historical  facts,  proven  by  the  word  and  rec- 
ord of  contemporary  witnesses. 

"But,  if  Christ  was  raised,  then  we  have  proof 
for  the  following  tenets,  all  contradicting  evolu- 
tionary speculation  at  so  many  vital  points: 
(1)  The  existence  of  a  Personal  God,  Who  is  con- 
cerned with  human  affairs;  (2)  The  reality  of 
miraculous  interference  with  natural  forces; 
(3)  The  truth  of  atonement  and  redemption;  and 


66  EVOLUTION    AT    THE    BAR 

(4)  The  inspiration  of  the  Old  Testament  Scrip- 
tures (hence  also  of  the  creation  account  in  Gene- 
sis). The  details  of  the  argument  are  beyond  the 
scope  of  this  paper ;  but  a  little  patient  study  will 
bring  to  light  the  fact  that  each  of  these  four  basic 
ideas  is  dovetailed,  mortised  and  anchored  so 
firmly  in  the  fact  of  Christ's  resurrection,  that 
you  can  get  rid  of  them  only  by  denying  that 
fact.  Hence  it  is,  aside  from  any  investigation 
of  proofs  of  Evolution,  clear  to  the  Christian  stu- 
dent that  there  must  be  some  fault  either  in 
reason  or  in  observation  that  vitiates  the  whole 
theory.  The  resurrection  of  Christ  is  a  fact,  to 
which  the  entire  history  of  Christianity  bears  wit- 
ness, the  most  tremendous  fact  in  the  history  of 
the  world.  And  it  stands  four-square  against  a 
theory  which  says  that  there  is  no  personal  God, 
no  sin,  no  redemption ;  that  there  are  no  miracles, 
no  revelation,  no  inspiration ;  that  there  is  no  ab- 
solute religion,  and  no  absolute  standard  of  right 
and  wrong. ' ' 

The  supreme  disproof  of  Evolution  then  is  the  Risen 
Christ,  and  the  results  which  have  everywhere  fol- 
lowed the  preaching  of  the  Kisen  Christ. 


CHAPTER  VII 

Estimates  of  The  Darwinian  doctrine  of  Natural 
Darwinism  Selection  has  been  discarded  by  Spen- 
cer, Huxley,  and  other  leading  evolu- 
tionists, who  thus  leave  the  theory  of  Evolution,  as  it 
were,  suspended  in  mid-air,  without  any  method 
whereby  it  could  work.  Mr.  Darwin  himself  had  se- 
rious misgivin^rs  as  to  his  theory,  and  never  regarded 
it  as  established. 

We  consider  that  the  abandonment  of  Natural 
Selection  must  logically  involve  the  abandonment  of 
the  entire  doctrine  of  Organic  Evolution.  It  is  ap- 
propriate, therefore,  to  make  brief  reference  to  the 
very  general  repudiation  in  recent  years  of  the  Dar- 
winian concept. 

Dr.  E.  Dennert's  book  At  the  Death-hed  of  Darwin- 
ism gives  the  testimonies  of  leading  scientists,  showing 
that  the  title  given  to  his  book  is  fully  justified. 

Prof.  Luther  T.  Townsend  has  also  written  on  The 
Collapse  of  Evolution,  giving  testimonies  of  promi- 
nent men  of  science  to  the  same  effect. 

St.  George  Mivart  (University  College,  Kensington, 
England)  says:  ''With  regard  to  the  conception  as 
put  forward  by  Mr,  Darwin,  I  cannot  truly  charac- 
terize it  except  by  an  epithet  which  I  employ  with 
great  reluctance.  I  weigh  my  words,  and  have  pres- 
ent to  my  mind  the  many  distinguished  naturalists 
who  have  accepted  the  notion,  and  yet  I  cannot  call  it 
anything  but  a  puerile  hypothesis.' ' 

Prof.  Fleischmann  of  Erlanger,  who  once  accepted 
Darwinism,  but  after  further  investigation  repu- 
diated it,  says:  ''The  Darwinian  theory  of  descent  has 
not  a  single  fact  to  confirm  it  in  the  realm  of  nature. 


68  EVOLUTION    AT    THE    BAR 

It  is  not  the  result  of  scientific  research,  but  is  purely 
the  product  of  the  imagination." 

Prof.  Haeckel,  a  most  extreme  evolutionist,  bewails 
the  fact  that  he  is  left  standing  almost  alone.  He 
says:  ''Most  modern  investigators  of  science  have 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  doctrine  of  Evolution, 
and  particularly  Darwinism,  is  an  error,  and  cannot 
be  maintained."  And  he  gives  an  impressive  list  of 
''bold  and  talented  scientists"  who,  he  admits,  have 
abandoned  the  theory  of  Darwin,  though  at  one  time 
they  advocated  it.  This  admission  by  one  of  the  most 
noted  infidel  evolutionists  is  important.  A  house  thus 
sharply  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand. 

Dr.  Gotte  has  published  an  instructive  history  of 
Darwinism,  showing  the  stages  through  which  it  has 
passed,  from  its  enthusiastic  reception  down  to  its 
final  stage  "when  its  days  will  evidently  soon  be  num- 
bered." 

Edward  von  Hartman  also  shows  that  Darwinism 
has  passed  through  four  stages,  and  says  that  the  op- 
position has  now  "swelled  into  a  great  chorus  of 
voices,  aiming  at  the  overthrow  of  the  Darwinian 
theory.  In  the  -first  decade  of  the  twentieth  century 
it  has  become  apparent  that  the  days  of  Darwinism  are 
numbered";  and  he  gives  the  names  of  eminent  scien- 
tists who  are  "among  its  latest  opponents." 

Prof.  Joseph  Le  Conte,  of  the  University  of  Cali- 
fornia, says :  ' '  The  evidence  of  geology  today  is  that 
species  seem  to  come  into  existence  suddenly,  and  in 
full  perfection,  remain  substantially  unchanged  dur- 
ing the  term  of  their  existence,  and  pass  away  in  full 
perfection.  Other  species  take  their  places  apparent- 
ly by  substitution,  not  by  transmutation.'' 

Dr.  Robert  Watts  says:  "The  record  of  the  rocks 
knows  nothing  of  the  evolution  of  a  higher  form  from 
a  lower  form.  .  .  .  Both  nature  and  revelation  pro- 
claim it  as  an  inviolable  law,  that  like  produces  like.'* 

Dr.  J.  B.  "Warren,  of  the  University  of  California, 


EVOLUTION  AT  THE  BAR  69 

said  recently:  *'If  the  theory  of  Evolution  be  true, 
then,  during  the  many  thousands  of  years  covered  in 
whole  or  in  part  by  present  human  knowledge,  there 
would  certainly  he  known  at  least  a  few  instances  of 
the  evolution  of  one  species  from  another.  No  such  , 
instance  ^5  known.'' 

Prof.  Owen  declares  that  "no  instance  of  change 
of  one  species  into  another  has  ever  been  recorded  by 
man." 

George  Ticknor  Curtis,  in  a  recent  book,  Creation 
or  Evohition,  says:  ''The  whole  doctrine  of  the  devel- 
opment of  distinct  species  out  of  other  species  makes 
demands  upon  our  credulity  which  is  irreconcilable 
with  those  principles  by  which  we  regulate,  or  ought 
to  regulate,  our  acceptance  of  any  new  matter  of  be- 
Hef." 

Prof.  Dana,  in  his  Manual  of  Geology,  says: 
* '  Science  has  no  explanation  of  the  origin  of  life.  The 
living  organism,  instead  of  being  a  product  of  physi- 
cal forces,  controls  those  forces  for  its  higher  forms, 
functions  and  purposes.  Its  introduction  was  the 
grandest  event  in  the  world's  early  history." 

Lord  Kelvin,  the  very  foremost  of  English  scien- 
tists in  his  day,  in  an  address  delivered  in  1903,  said : 
"Forty  years  ago  I  asked  Liebig,  walking  somewhere 
in  the  country,  if  he  believed  that  the  grass  and  flow- 
ers which  we  saw  around  us  grew  by  mere  chance 
force.  He  answered,  'No;  no  more  than  I  believe 
that  a  book  of  botany  could  grow  by  mere  chemical 

force It  is  not  in  dead  matter  that  men  live  and 

move,  and  have  their  being ;  but  in  a  creative  and  di- 
rective Power,  which  science  compels  us  to  accept  as 
an  article  of  faith.  Is  there  anything  so  ahsurd  as 
to  believe  that  a  number  of  atoms,  by  falling  together 
of  their  own  accord,  could  make  a  crystal,  a  microbe, 
or  a  living  animal  ? '  " 

There  is  nothing  so  reasonable  as  faith.  For  faith 
is  simply  the  acceptance  of  the  testimony  of  God, 


70  EVOLUTION    AT    THE    BAR 

given  to  men  in  ''the  Scriptures  of  truth,"  which 
have  proved  themselves,  in  their  history  and  influence 
in  the  world,  to  be  super-human.  Conversely,  there  is 
nothing  more  unreasonable  than  unbelief;  for  it  de- 
nies not  only  the  light  of  Divine  revelation,  but  that 
of  nature  (Rom.  1:20;  Acts  14:15-17;  17:24-29). 
Small  wonder  is  it  that  men  who  vaunt  the  human  in- 
tellect and  who  have  rejected  the  word  of  the  Lord, 
should  be  so  fatuously  credulous  as  to  attribute  de- 
signing skill  and  creative  power  to  a  mere  concourse 
of  atoms. 

The  same  Lord  Kelvin,  whom  we  have  just  quoted, 
is  on  record  as  declaring  that,  there  is  not  a  sinc/le  as- 
certained fact  of  science  which  conflicts  with  any 
statement  of  the  Bihle. 

When,  therefore,  we  hear,  as  is  common  enough 
nowadays,  assertions  made  by  unbelieving  theologians 
and  others,  to  the  effect  that  ''science"  has  shown  this 
or  that  statement  of  Scripture  to  be  erroneous,  let  it 
be  remembered  that  we  can  bring  the  testimony  of  the 
most  eminent  men  of  science  to  prove  those  assertions 
false. 

Dr.  Ethridge  of  the  British  Museum,  a  noted  ex- 
.pert  in  fossilology,  speaking  of  the  views  of  evolu- 
tionists, says:  "This  Museum  is  full  of  proofs  of  the 
utter  falsity  of  their  views." 

Prof.  L.  S.  Beal,  acknowledged  to  be  in  the  front 
rank  of  British  scientists,  in  an  address  delivered  June 
1903,  said :  "The  idea  of  any  relation  between  the  non- 
living, by  gradual  advance  of  lifeless  matter  to  the 
lowest  forms  of  life,  and  so  onward  to  the  higher  and 
more  complex,  has  not  the  slightest  evidence  from 
any  facts  of  any  section  of  living  nature  of  which 
anything  is  known. ' ' 

Virchow  of  Berlin,  regarded  by  some  as  the  fore- 
most chemist  of  the  world,  said,  "It  is  all  nonsense. 
It  cannot  be  proved  by  science  that  man  descended 
from  the  ape  or  from  any  other  animal."     He  went 


EVOLUTION   AT   THE   BAR  71 

SO  far  as  to  denounce  the  theory  as  dangerous  to  the 
state,  and  demanded  that  it  be  excluded  from  the 
schools. 

Much  more  of  the  same  sort  might  be  added ;  but  it 
will  suffice  to  refer  to  Prof.  Fairhurst's  Theistic  Evo- 
lution (Standard  Publishing  Co.,  Cincinnati),  and 
Graebner's  Evolution,  already  referred  to,  from  which 
most  of  the  above  quotations  are  taken.  We  will  only 
mention  additionally  a  statement  made  in  a  very  re- 
cent address  (February  1922)  by  Prof.  Wm.  Bateson, 
the  distinguished  English  biologist,  a  scientist  of  the 
first  rank,  who,  speaking  in  Toronto,  Canada,  is  re- 
ported to  have  said:  ''It  is  impossible  for  scientists 
longer  to  agree  with  Darwin's  theory  of  the  origin  of 
the  species.  No  explanation  whatever  has  been  of- 
fered to  account  for  the  fact  that,  after  forty  years, 
no  evidence  has  been  discovered  to  verify  his  genesis 
of  species." 

Surely   our   ''liberal"   theologians,    who    teach    asl 
truth  that  monstrous  fiction  which  true  men  of  science 
never  regarded  as  more  than  a  speculative  theory,  and 
now  have,  with  practical  unanimity,  repudiated,  are 
utterly  without  excuse. 

The  Existing"  Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  Dar- 
Danger  winism  is  no  longer  believed  in  the 

circles  in  which  it  originated,  its  in- 
fluence for  harm  was  never  so  great  as  now.  The  rea- 
son is  that  the  theory  has  found  its  way  into  the  theo- 
logical seminaries,  and  into  the  school-books  of  the 
children,  where  it  is  doing  the  deadly  and  truly  dev- 
ilish work  of  discrediting,  in  the  eyes  of  many,  the 
statements  of  the  Word  of  God. 

Darwinism  A    parent,    writing    to    a    religious 

in  the  Schools      periodical,     tells     of     a     text-book 
brought  home  hy  his  seven-year-old 
boy,  the  title  of  which  was  ''Home  Geography  for  Pri- 
mary Grades.'*      The  following  quotation  will  serve 


72  EVOLUTION   AT    THE    BAR 

to  show  what  is  now  being  taught  to  children  of  the 
most  tender  years.  Discussing  the  subject  of  lirds, 
this  text-book  for  primary  grades  says :  ' '  Ever  so  long 
ago  their  grandfathers  were  not  birds  at  all.  Then 
they  could  not  fly,  for  they  had  neither  wings  nor 
feathers.  These  grandfathers  of  our  birds  had  four 
legs,  a  long  tail,  and  jaws  with  teeth.  After  a  time 
feathers  grew  on  their  bodies,  and  their  front  legs  be- 
came changed  for  flying.  These  were  strange  looking 
creatures.  There  are  none  living  like  them  now." 
Such  are  the  monstrous  fictions  now  taught  to  little 
children  as  scientific  truth. 

It  is  a  significant  and  disquieting  fact  that  a  deter- 
mined effort  recently  made  in  the  legislature  of  Ken- 
tucky to  forbid  the  teaching  of  Evolution  in  the 
schools  of  that  State  was  defeated.  Thus  the  arch  en- 
emy of  God  and  men  has  manoeuvred  this  '*  Chris- 
tian" countiy  into  the  position  where  the  accepted 
canons  of  education  forhid  the  teaching  of  the  Bible 
to  the  children  of  the  tax-payers,  hut  permit  the  teach- 
ing of  the  most  anti-Christian  and  unscientific  doc- 
trine that  ever  made  a  hid  for  puhlic  favor. 

The  support  for  the  teaching  of  Evolution  (which 
in  practically  all  cases  means  the  utterly  discredited 
theory  of  Charles  Darwin)  came  from  ''educators  and 
religious  leaders"  (so  says  the  Literary  Digest,  March 
25,  1922)  like  Ljrman  Abbott,  Dr.  Angell,  President 
of  Yale,  Dr.  Lowell,  President  of  Harvard,  and  Dr. 
McFarland,  Sec  'y  of  the  Federal  Council  of  Churches. 

It  is  high  time  for  parents  to  be  awakened  out  of 
sleep  as  to  the  dangers  to  which  their  children  are  ex- 
posed in  our  modern  schools.  These  are  indeed  ''per- 
ilous times ' ' ;  and  one  of  the  greatest  perils  thereof  is 
the  teaching  which  is  now  being  given  to  the  young. 
Parents,  who  would  be  careful  to  keep  their  little  ones 
from  the  dangers  of  the  streets,  recklessly  expose  them 
every  day  to  the  more  serious  dangers  of  the  schools, 
and  give  themselves  little  concern  as  to  what  they 
learn  there  from  teachers  and  companions. 


CHAPTER  YIII 

Evolution  in  We  come  now  to  a  matter  of  deep- 

Human  Affairs  est  interest  and  importance;  for 
when  we  turn  our  attention  to  the 
realm  of  human  affairs  and  activities,  we  observe  a 
state  of  things  which  is  in  the  greatest  possible  con- 
trast to  what  is  seen  elsewhere  among  living  species. 
It  is  exceedingly  important,  with  a  view  to  a  right 
understanding  of  the  theory  of  Evolution,  that  this 
contrast  be  noted,  and  its  significance  be  com- 
prehended. 

Briefly  stated  the  contrast  lies  in  this,  that  Evolu- 
tion is  the  method  of  working  which  prevails  every- 
where, and  always  has,  in  human  affairs,  whereas  out- 
side of  human  affairs  there  is  not  a  trace  of  it  to  be 
found  in  all  the  universe.  By  ''human  affairs"  we 
mean,  those  activities  wherein  man  himself  is  the  de- 
signer and  agent.  For  there  is  a  realm  wherein  man 
is  the  directing  and  controlling  authority,  wherein  he 
has  free  scope  to  try  out  all  his  ideas,  and  to  exert  all 
his  powers  in  every  direction. 

Man,  in  all  his  operations,  and  in  every  depart- 
ment of  his  diversified  activities,  is  progressive.  Other 
living  creatures  are  absolutely  unprogressive.  Man 
develops  arts,  industries,  social  institutions,  gov- 
ernments, etc.,  etc.,  by  trying  experiments,  discover- 
ing defects  and  weaknesses,  devising  remedies,  and  so 
on,  the  changes  being  so  rapid  and  so  extensive  that 
each  generation  lives  in  a  different  industrial,  politi- 
cal, social  and  religious  environment,  to  that  of  its 
predecessors. 

In  Society  at  large  we  find  a  typical  illustration. 
It  is  one  employed  by  Herbert  Spencer.  He  says 
(First  Principles  ch.  14.  Sec.  3)  ''In  the  social  organ- 


74  EVOLUTION    AT    THE    BAR 

ism  integrative  changes  are  clearly  and  abundantly 
exemplified."  And  so  beyond  dispute  they  are.  Mr. 
Spencer  cites  the  development  of  ' '  Society, ' '  beginning 
with  wandering  families,  then  tribes,  then  stronger 
tribes  formed  by  union  with  or  subjugation  of  others, 
until  the  combinations  became  relatively  permanent, 
and  ultimately  were  evolved  into  States  and  National- 
ities. Nor  has  this  progression  ceased;  for  since 
Spencer's  time  there  have  been  further  combinations 
of  nations,  and  finally  a  ''League  of  Nations,"  which 
will  undoubtedly  eventuate  in  the  Federation  of 
Kingdoms,  symbolically  pictured  as  the  Beast  in  Dan- 
iel and  Revelation. 

The  same  progression  from  simple  and  incoherent 
beginnings,  to  conditions  relatively  complex  and  co- 
herent, may  be  traced  in  every  department  of  human 
affairs.  Whether  we  examine  the  industrial  groups, 
the  ecclesiastical,  the  military,  the  medical,  the  legal, 
etc.,  we  find  the  same  progressive  development. 

Let  us  consider  a  few  illustrations  of  this  striking 
law  of  humanity. 

A  few  centuries  ago  the  crudest  implements  served 
the  farmer  for  preparing  the  soil  and  gathering  his 
crops.  From  those  simple  beginnings  have  evolved 
the  tractors,  harvesters,  and  other  modern  wonders 
of  farm-equipment;  and  the  advance  has  been  by 
slight,  progressive  changes.  Here  is  Evolution  sure 
enough,  and  precisely  as  described  by  Spencer  and 
other  materialists. 

So  likewise  in  the  department  of  Locomotion  and 
Transportation,  it  is  easy  to  trace,  between  the  wheel- 
barrow and  ox-cart  of  by-gone  days,  and  the  auto- 
car and  flying  machine  of  the  twentieth  century,  a 
connected  line  of  evolutionary  progress.  And  a  simi- 
lar line  may  be  traced  from  the  birch-bark  canoe  to 
the  Transoceanic  liner  and  the  submarine. 

If  we  look  along  other  industrial  lines,  as  milling, 
printing,  paper  making,  communicating  intelligence 


EVOLUTION   AT   THE  BAR  75 

to  distant  points,  weapons  of  war,  etc.,  etc.,  we  see  the 
same  thing,  that  is  to  say,  a  very  crude  and  imperfect 
beginning,  with  a  succession  of  forms,  each  an  im- 
provement upon  its  predecessors,  and  with  never  an 
end  to  the  development. 

Again  in  the  literary  field,  we  can  readily  trace  the 
activity  of  man  from  a  simple  beginning  in  oral  reci- 
tation and  manuscript  copies  on  vellum  or  papyrus, 
to  the  manifold  present-day  output  of  books,  news- 
papers and  other  periodicals. 

So  with  the  religions  of  the  world.  The  human  ele- 
ment in  these  has  undergone  great  and  progressive 
changes,  both  in  ideals  and  in  forms  and  observances ; 
and  the  progress  still  continues.  Here  we  have  again 
an  instructive  contrast;  for  we  can  readily  compare 
the  development  of  the  religions  of  the  world,  with  the 
progressive  Revelation  of  the  Truth  of^  God.  The 
former  follows,  like  everything  else  which  is  under 
the  control  of  man,  a  strictly  evolutionary  course, 
every  new  stage  involving  the  destruction  of  what  pre- 
ceded. The  latter  is,  like  everything  that  comes  from 
God,  perfect  (as  far  as  it  goes)  from  the  start.  And, 
though  His  Revelation  has  been  given  at  sundry  times 
and  in  many  distinct  parts,  yet  there  is  not  a  trace  of 
Evolution  in  it;  for  every  part  of  God's  Revelation 
remains  forever  true;  and  all  the  parts  together  unite 
in  perfect  agreement  to  constitute  a  complete  and  har- 
monious system  of  Truth. 

It  were  a  very  easy  matter  to  multiply  our  illus- 
trations, for  they  lie  all  around  us  in  plain  view.  For 
wherever  we  look  within  the  realm  of  human  affairs 
the  evidences  of  Evolution  stare  us  in  the  face.  But, 
in  striking  and  significant  contrast  with  this  is  the 
fact  that,  the  moment  we  pass  the  boundaries  of  that 
realm,  we  strain  our  eyes  in  vain  for  a  scrap  of  evi- 
dence to  indicate  that  the  process  of  Evolution  ever 
had  a  foothold.  The  birds  construct  their  nests,  the 
beavers  their  dams,  the  bee-hives  and  ant-colonies  car- 


76  EVOLUTION   AT    THE    BAR 

ry  on  their  complex  operations,  precisely  as  they 
always  have  done.  Moreover,  each  of  those  creatures 
does  its  work  perfectly  at  the  very  first  attempt, 
whereas  man  makes  innumerable  failures  before  he 
can  do  anything  even  passably  well. 

Evidences  of  In  this  connection  there  are  several 

Evolution  in  facts  which  have  an  important  bear- 

Human  Affairs  ing  on  the  main  question,  and  which 
should  therefore  be  carefully  noted. 

First,  in  the  field  where  Evolution  does  operate — 
that  is,  in  the  realm  of  human  enterprises,  from  which 
Spencer  and  others  draw  all  their  illustrations — ^the 
evidences  of  its  workings  abound.  Traces  of  the  ear- 
lier and  cruder  forms,  which  subsequent  improvements 
have  displaced,  are  plentiful.  The  advancement, 
moreover,  is  not  so  slow  as  to  give  the  impression  that 
things  are  at  a  standstill,  but,  on  the  contrary,  is  sw/- 
ficiently  rapid  to  permit  of  observation  of  its  character 
and  direction.  From  these  facts  it  must  be  concluded 
that,  if  there  were  any  Evolution  in  those  realms  of  na- 
ture which  are  not  under  the  guidance  and  control  of 
' '  the  will  of  man, ' '  there  would  be  abundant  evidences 
of  its  workings  in  those  spheres  also.  The  only  and  the 
sufficient  reason  why  things  in  Nature  appear  to  be  at 
a  standstill,  and  have  so  appeared  during  the  thou- 
sands of  years  they  have  been  under  man's  observation, 
is  that  they  are  at  a  standstill.  The  simple  and  satis- 
factory explanation  of  the  fact  that  no  trace  of  Evolu- 
tion has  ever  been  found  in  Nature  is,  that  there  has 
been  no  Evolution  there. 

Second,  it  is  seen  that,  in  all  the  departments  of 
human  activities  there  is  never  any  end  of  development, 
either  in  the  construction  of  the  things  which  man 
makes,  or  in  the  methods  by  which  he  operates.  Never, 
in  any  part  of  this  realm,  is  a  stage  reached  where 
there  is  rest  and  stahility.  Never  has  the  right  thing, 
or  the  right  method,  been  attained.    But  in  Nature  all 


EVOLUTION  AT  THE  BAR  77 

is  stable.    Both  structures  and  processes  remain  iden- 
tically the  same  as  they  have  ever  been. 

Why  this  astonishing  difference?  Manifestly,  the 
reason  why  there  is  no  improvement  in  the  life-habits 
of  the  lower  orders  is  because  there  is  no  need  of  any. 
Indeed,  we  can  say  there  is  no  possibility  of  any.  For 
who  could  improve  upon  the  structure  or  materials  of 
the  honey-comb  ?  The  ways  of  those  creatures  do  not 
change,  for  the  simple  reason  that  their  ways,  works 
and  habits  of  life  are  just  what  their  Creator  planned 
for  them. 

With  man  it  is  far  otherwise.  The  scheme  of  life 
appointed  to  him  has  been  completely  wrecked.  ^  His 
whole  race  is  blighted  and  degraded.  It  finds  itself 
in  conditions  of  poverty  and  wretchedness.  Its  ener- 
gies, therefore,  are  directed  towards  improvement,  for 
the  very  reason  that  it  has  fallen  from  the  place  of  life 
appointed  for  it. 

But  the  most  learned  and  intelligent  of  those  who 
reject  the  light  of  Holy  Scripture  (which  reveals  the 
truth  as  to  man's  condition,  and  shows  that,  despite 
all  material  gains,  corruption  and  decay  still  increase 
and  spread  among  the  children  of  men)  are  easily 
misled  as  to  the  facts ;  and  they  mistake  material  gains 
for  true  progress. 

Man's  ''progress,"  of  which  he  loudly  boasts,  is  a 
delusion.  There  is  indeed  a  constant  advance  in  me- 
chanical inventions,  and  in  all  that  contributes  to  a 
grossly  materialistic  industrialism.  But  that  apparent 
progress  serves  but  to  hide  the  real  facts  from  the 
many,  who  look  only  at  the  surface  of  things.  In 
reality  the  civilized  nations  are  on  the  down  grade. 
Crime,  insanity  and  suicides  increase  at  an  appalling 
rate.  Everywhere  the  spirit  of  violence^  and  lawless- 
ness is  rampant.  In  commercial  life,  political  life  and 
private  life  corruption  increases  and  abounds. 

The  noted  scientist,  A.  R.  Wallace,  who  put  forth 
the  theory  of  Evolution  contemporaneously  with  Dar- 


78  EVOLUTION   AT    THE    BAR 

win,  said,  shortly  before  his  death  in  his  ninety-first 
year: 

''I  have  come  to  the  general  conclusion  that 
there  has  been  no  advance  either  in  intellect  or 
morals  since  the  days  of  the  earliest  Egyptians. 
Everything  is  as  had  as  it  possibly  can  he.  There 
exist  in  our  midst  horrors  and  dreadful  diseases 
never  known  before.  Our  whole  social  environ- 
ment is  rotten,  full  of  vice  and  everything  that  is 
bad.'^ 

Had  Mr.  Wallace  lived  to  see  the  conditions  in  the 
world  resulting  from  the  great  European  War  he 
would  have  had  to  admit  that  things  could  be  even 
worse  than  they  were  then. 

The  Spread  Finally  we  call  attention  to  the  perti- 

of  the  Theory  nent  fact  that  the  presence  and 
Accoiintedfor  working  of  the  law  of  Evolution  in 
human  affairs  has  furnished  Spencer 
and  others  with  such  apt  illustrations,  and  they  have 
used  them  so  skilfully,  that  many  fail  to  see  the  im- 
portant fact  to  which  we  are  here  calling  attention,  i 
namely,  that  the  instances  of  Evolution  to  which  they 
are  able  to  point  lie  always  in  the  realm  of  human  in- 
stitutions. 

To  this  point  we  ask  careful  attention,  for  in  it  is 
found  the  explanation  of  what  every  intelligent  per- 
son will  ask,  namely,  how  comes  it  that  a  theory,  for 
which  there  has  never  been  the  slightest  proof,  but 
which,  on  the  contrary,  is  opposed  to  all  the  facts  of 
human  observation,  has  met  with  such  wide  ac- 
ceptance among  intelligent  people  ?  The  reason  is  that, 
in  the  field  which  lies  nearest  to  man,  and  in  which 
he  can  most  easily  observe,  there  is  Evolution;  not 
only  in  localities  but  everywhere;  and  not  only  occa- 
sionally but  always.  It  was  easy,  therefore,  to  make 
the  assumption  that,  in  the  more  remote  fields  of  Na- 


EVOLUTION  AT  THE  BAR  79 

ture,  the  same  law  of  progressive  changes  was  in  con- 
trol; and  the  fact  that  ''varieties"  of  plants  and  an- 
imals could  be  produced  by  artificial  breeding,  gave 
a  color  of  support  to  the  theory.  That  theory  once 
formulated  and  proclaimed,  it  would  inevitably  be  re- 
ceived exultantly  by  all  who  are  biased  against  the 
truth  of  man 's  fall  and  depravity,  and  so  it  was  sure 
of  strong  and  enthusiastic  support. 

The  Fatal  On  this  point  we  quote  again  from  Prof. 
Bias  Graebner : 

' '  The  warfare  of  philosophy  against 
Christian  faith  is  readily  explained.  Man  is  cor- 
rupt. He  loves  sin.  He  is  conscious  of  his  guilt  and 
fears  the  penalty.  Hence  every  avenue  of  escape  is 
welcome,  if  only  he  can  persuade  himself  that  there  is 
no  God,  no  judgment.  Man  is  proud,  he  desires  no 
Saviour.  Hence  the  effort  to  prove  that  no  Saviour  is 
needed,  that  there  is  no  guilt  attaching  to  sin,  that 
there  is  no  absolute  right  and  wrong.  Hence  too  the 
doctrine  of  the  Agnostic  that  we  can  ascribe  no  attri- 
butes to  God.  When  we  read  the  'Synthetic  Philoso- 
phy' of  Spencer  we  are  apt  to  believe  that  the  agnos- 
ticism there  set  forth  is  the  result  of  deep  philosophi- 
cal speculation.  Nothing  could  be  further  from  the 
truth.  Man,  even  cultured  philosophical  man,  wants 
to  have  no  restrictions  placed  upon  pride  and  selfish- 
ness ;  hence  it  is  necessary  to  rid  the  mind  of  the  fear 
of  Divine  justice;  hence  the  desire  to  demonstrate 
that  God  has  no  attrihutes,  such  as  that  He  is  '  justy 
for  instance.  The  Psalmist  describes  this  attitude  in 
the  words,  'Let  us  break  their  bands  asunder,  and 
cast  away  their  cords  from  us. ' 

''No  one  who  has  grasped  the  inner  motive  of  all 
'Scientific'  effort  to  demolish  faith,  can  fail  to  un- 
derstand why  the  many  greet  with  such  jubilant  ac- 
claim every  new  attack  upon  the  Biblical  narrative. 
No  one  who  has  pondered  this  motive  can  be  snared  in 


80  EVOLUTION   AT    THE    BAR 

the  net  of  'science,  falsely  so  called.'     He  has  seen  its 
inwardness,  he  knows  its  fatal  bias. ' ' 

The  Law  of  The  law  of  Evolution  then  is  strict- 

Sin  and  Death  ly  confined  to  one  realm,  the  sphere 
of  human  affairs ;  and  therein  it  has 
full  sway.  It  is  the  law  or  rule  of  action  of  a  fallen 
race.  It  is  ^Uhe  law  of  sin  and  death''  (Rom  8:2). 
lit  has  no  place  in  the  Kingdom  of  God,  or  in  any 
Isphere  which  sin  has  not  invaded.  It  arises  solely 
from  man's  efforts  to  improve  his  wretched  condition, 
and  from  blindness  to  God's  way  of  recovering  and 
restoring  His  perishing  human  creatures. 

Man,  having  discovered  that  Evolution  is  the  rule 
of  procedure  in  the  realm  of  his  own  doings,  has  im- 
puted the  same  law  to  his  Maker,  thus  fulfilling  the 
Scripture,  ''Thou  thoughtest  that  I  was  altogether 
such  an  one  as  thyself." 


I 


